State of Denial, by Bob Woodward: on War & Peace


Colin Powell: Overwhelming Force replaced by Rumsfeld’s “Less is More”

In Nov.’01, the Iraq war plan was the chessboard on which Rumsfeld would test, develop, expand and modify his ideas about military transformation. And the driving concept was “less is more”--a lighter, swifter, smaller force that could do the job better.

An important contrast to this process can be found in the war planning for the 1991 Gulf War. Powell, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, illustrates the difference. After Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991, George H. W. Bush asked Powell how many troops it would take to provide an offensive option--the capacity to drive Saddam’s army out of Kuwait. The resulting concept was “Go in big, and end it quickly. We could not put the US through another Vietnam.” The plan to use overwhelming force to guarantee victory became known as the Powell Doctrine.

In 2001, the point of the Iraq war plan was: Get to Baghdad, and fast. It echoed Rumsfeld’s desire--“assume risk.” The Powell Doctrine of trying to guarantee success was out. Rapid, decisive warfare was in.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 81-83&100 Oct 1, 2006

Colin Powell: Pre-Iraq warnings to Bush about difficult post-war governing

On Jan. 13 2002, President Bush summoned Secretary of State Colin Powell for a 12-minute Oval Office meeting to say he had decided on war with Iraq.

“You’re sure?” asked Powell. Bush said he was. “You understand the consequences,” Powell offered in a half question. For nearly six months, Powell had been hammering on the theme of the complexity of governing Iraq after the war. “You know that you’re going to be owning this place?”

Bush said he realized that. “Are you with me on this?” Powell, “Time to put your war uniform on.”

The president very reluctantly confirmed to me that he had asked Powell directly for his support but added testily a rather obvious point. “I didn’t need his permission.”

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.106 Oct 1, 2006

Colin Powell: If we knew of no WMDs, war decision would've differed

Powell went to The Washington Post for an interview on February 2, 2004. He was asked what his position on the war would have been if he had known there were no stockpiles of WMD. "The absence of stockpiles changes the political calculus," Powell said. "It changes the answer you get." His remarks were the lead story in the next day, headlined: "Powell Says New Data May Have Affected War Decision."

Condi Rice called Powell. She and the president were "mad," she said. Powell had "given the Democrats a remarkable tool." His remarks were making headlines throughout the world. Bush's public position was that the jury was still out on WMD. So Powell had to go back out in public and retract his remarks, saying 5 times that the president's decision to go to war had been "right."

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.281 Oct 1, 2006

Condoleezza Rice: Warned by CIA in July 2001 of major al-Qaeda attack soon

On July 10, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet reviewed the increasing likelihood that al Qaeda would soon attack the US. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided to go to the White House immediately.

For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden. On June 30, a top-secret intelligence brief contained an article headlined “Bin Laden Threats Are Real.” Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice.

Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated. Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. The July 10 meeting went unmentioned in the various investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, but it stood out in the mind of Tenet as the starkest warning on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Tenet’s deputy later said, “The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.”

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 49-51 Oct 1, 2006

Condoleezza Rice: Wrote pre-9/11 plan to go after bin Laden; but not approved

The July 10, 2001 meeting with Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports investigating the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, but it stood out as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Indeed, Tenet and Black had demanded action that day, but it was not clear what immediate action really would have meant. The strategic warning Tenet and Black gave lacked details: When? Where? How?

Besides, the planning for covert action to go after bin Laden in his sanctuary in Afghanistan actually did go forward at a pretty fast clip--quite fast for a national security bureaucracy, although the plan was not approved before the 9/11 attacks. In fact, Rice had a National Security Presidential Directive to launch a new covert war against bin Laden set to go to Bush on 9/10/2001. It was NSPD-9, meaning 8 other foreign policy matters had been formally debated, agreed on and signed by the president as administration policy before the plan to go after bin Laden.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 52 Oct 1, 2006

Dick Cheney: Post-9-11 philosophy: two-generation war starts with Iraq

On 11/29/2001, [a DOD appointed "think tank" group] distilled their thoughts into a 7-page document, called "Delta of terrorism." [It summarized that] "a war was going on within Islam--it was a deep problem, & 9/11 was not an isolated action that called for policing and crime fighting." Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from, were the key, but the problems there are intractable. Iran is more important. But Saddam Hussein was different, weaker, more vulnerable. A confrontation with Saddam was inevitable. "We agreed that Saddam would have to leave the scene before the problem would be addressed." That was the only way to transform the region.

Copies of the memo, straight from the neoconservative playbook, pleased Cheney, and it had a strong impact on President Bush, causing him to focus on the "malignancy" of the Middle East. Rice found it "very, very persuasive." Summarizing their conclusions, DOD analysts said, "We're facing a 2-generation war. And start with Iraq."

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 84-5 Oct 1, 2006

Dick Cheney: Aug.’02: “No doubt” that Saddam had WMD (later proven wrong)

In the fall of 2002, Bush made it clear that war with Iraq was necessary and inevitable [in a conversation with CIA chief George Tenet]. Tenet said he found that there was a part of Bush that might still be deliberating while some others under him, like Cheney and Wolfowitz, had absolutely decided that war was coming.

Had Cheney told Bush, “Yes, you’ve got to do it?” Tenet had never been in the room when that happened, but he believed Cheney was privately pressuring Bush, arguing strongly for was as the only solution to the Saddam Hussein problem.

On Aug. 26, Cheney said in a public speech, “There is no doubt that Saddam now has WMD. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

In Jan. 2003, a White House spokesperson said, “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.” On Feb. 8, Bush said, “Saddam Hussein recently authorized the use of chemical weapons--the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 89-92&139 Oct 1, 2006

Dick Cheney: Pushed Saddam-al Qaeda connection but CIA & Powell disagreed

In Feb. 2003, Cheney was seized with what he thought was a connection between Saddam & al Qaeda, but the CIA disagreed. CIA chief George Tenet & his people had gone over the intelligence as completely as they could. There was no proof, Tenet said plainly True, the Saddam regime had given sanctuary to a Jordanian with al Qaeda ties. But there was no evidence to show that Saddam was involved. “I can’t take you to authority, direction & control,” Tenet said, the high standard that had to be met to make a case for a Saddam-al Qaeda link.

Powell was to make the WMD intelligence case for war to the UN. Cheney wanted him to look at the Saddam-al Qaeda link. Powell thought the link didn’t exist and he refused to include it in his speech.

After Powell’s UN speech, Cheney wanted to give his own speech making the charge [that Powell had omitted]. Tenet was upset. If Cheney gives the speech, Tenet told Bush, the CIA cannot and will not stand behind it. Bush backed Tenet and told Cheney not to give the speech.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.120&135 Oct 1, 2006

Dick Cheney: Mar.’03: “Greeted as liberators”; no need for 100,000 troops

[In Feb. 2003, Rumsfeld ordered that the author of the ‘Future of Iraq’ study, which analyzed the post-war risks, be taken] “off the Pentagon team. I’ve gotten this request from such a high level that I can’t turn it down,” Rumsfeld said. That could only mean Bush or conceivably Cheney.

The opposition to the study’s author was described as coming from “a group of about five people” in Cheney’s office--“a cabal”, one army colonel reported. Another Pentagon officer said, “it was the vice president” [who suppressed the dissenting discussion].

Three days before the start of the war, on March 16 2003, Cheney predicted, “My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” The interviewer said that Congressional testimony indicated that the post-war phase would likely require more troops. “To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, I don’t think that is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement,” Cheney said.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.127-128&151 Oct 1, 2006

Dick Cheney: Adopted Kissinger’s “Victory is the only exit strategy”

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had a powerful, largely invisible influence on the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. “Of the outside people that I talk to,” Cheney told me, “I probably talk to Henry Kissinger more than anybody else.” The president also met privately with Kissinger every couple of months, making him the most frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs.

Kissinger supported the Iraq war, but increasingly saw it through the prism of the Vietnam War. For Kissinger, the overriding lesson of Vietnam is to stick it out. He claimed that the US had essentially won the war in 1972, only to lose it because of the weakened resolve of the public and Congress. In The Washington Post on 8/12/05, Kissinger wrote, “ Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.” [A few months later], the administration issued a “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” It was right out of the Kissinger playbook. The only meaningful exit strategy would be victory.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.406-8 Oct 1, 2006

Donald Rumsfeld: Afghanistan was CIA operation; Iraq was his operation

At an NSC meeting the day after the 9/11 attacks, Bush asked what the military could do immediately. Rumsfeld replied, "Very little, effectively." Later that day, Rumsfeld asked Bush, Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? The president put Rumsfeld off, wanting to focus on Afghanistan, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The CIA stepped in to fill the void. They could bring to bear all the resources of the intelligence community, combined with US military power and Special Forces, harness the factional opposition known as the Northern Alliance, defeat the Taliban and close out the al Qaeda sanctuary.

Rumsfeld sat uneasily on the sidelines. At an NSC meeting on October 16, his frustration boiled over. "This is CIA's strategy," he declared. "They developed the strategy. We're just executing the strategy." Rumsfeld had been humiliated. Never again. The next month, when the president ordered him to look seriously at the Iraq war plan, Rumsfeld made it his personal project. This would be his.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 77-9 Oct 1, 2006

Donald Rumsfeld: Replaced Powell’s “Overwhelming Force” with “Less is More”

In Nov. 2001, the Iraq war plan was the chessboard on which Rumsfeld would test, develop, expand & modify his ideas about military transformation. The driving concept was “less is more”--new thinking about a lighter, swifter, smaller force that could do the job better. Rumsfeld’s blitzkrieg would vindicate his leadership of the Pentagon. He was the main architect, driving the meetings & changes.

An important contrast can be found in the 1991 Gulf War. Powell’s concept was “Go in big & end it quickly. We could not put the US through another Vietnam.“ The plan to use overwhelming force to guarantee victory became known as the Powell Doctrine.

In 2001, things were different. The two great Pentagon ideas--a new, ”refreshed“ Iraq war plan, as Rumsfeld called it, and military transformation--converged.

The point of the Iraq war plan was: Get to Baghdad, and fast. It echoed Rumsfeld’s desire--”assume risk.“ The Powell Doctrine of trying to guarantee success was out. Rapid, decisive warfare was in.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 81-83&100 Oct 1, 2006

Donald Rumsfeld: Briefed on risks & dangers before war; but shut down dissent

A Feb. 2003 report identified “Show stoppers--problems, if not solved, place mission at risk”:Tom Warrick, author of the related ‘Future of Iraq’ study, was transferred by Jay Garner from the State Department to the Pentagon as a result. A few days later, Rumsfeld said to Garner, ”I’ve got to ask you to take Warrick off the team. I’ve gotten this request from such a high level that I can’t turn it down.“

A level so high that the secretary of defense couldn’t turn it down? That could only mean Bush or conceivably Cheney.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.125-127 Oct 1, 2006

Donald Rumsfeld: Infrastructure collapse was Saddam's fault, not U.S.

In 2003, Rumsfeld said, perhaps trying to refute Powell's warning that the US would own Iraq. "We will stay as long as necessary to help you do that--and not a day longer."

In an interview later, Rumsfeld said he realized that "the Iraqi infrastructure had been neglected for decades. I went over and looked at an electric power plant. I can remember, it was being held together with chewing gum, bobby pins and baling wire. And I looked at [it] myself and said, My Lord, this took 30 years to get there." Saddam had ruled for over 30 years. "It's going to take 30 years to get out of here, to get that--not us out--for them to get back to looking like Kuwait or Jordan or Saudi Arabia or Turkey or their neighbors. And I said, My goodness, that's going to be their job over a long period of time, because it just takes that long. You can't--and they have wealth. They've got water. They've got oil. They've got industrious people. They clearly are going to be the ones that are going to have to do that."

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.186 Oct 1, 2006

Donald Rumsfeld: Garner: key mistakes were disbanding army & deBaathification

On June 18, 2003, Jay Garner went to see Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to report on his brief tenure in Iraq as head of the postwar planning office. “We’ve made three tragic decisions,” Jay Garner, the US envoy to Iraq, told Rumsfeld.

“Really?” Rumsfeld asked.

“Three terrible mistakes,” Garner said. He cited the first order banning as many as 50,000 members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party from government jobs and the second order disbanding the Iraqi military. Now there were hundreds of thousands of disorganized, unemployed, armed Iraqis running around. Third, Garner said, was the summary dismissal of an interim Iraqi leadership group that had been eager to help the United States administer the country in the short term. Garner made his final point: “There’s still time to rectify this. There’s still time to turn it around.”

Rumsfeld looked at Garner for a moment with his take-no-prisoners gaze. “Well,” he said, “I don’t think there is anything we can do, because we are where we are.”

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.219 Oct 1, 2006

George Bush Sr.: 2002: Supported diplomacy in pre-war Iraq & didn't tell son

Barbara Bush asked a family friend, former Sen. David Boren [D-OK], "Are we right to be worried about this Iraq thing?"

"Yes, I'm very worried."

"Do you think it's a mistake?"

"Yes, ma'am," Boren replied. "I think it's a huge mistake if we go in right now, this way."

"Well, his father is certainly worried and is losing sleep over it. He's up at night worried."

"Why doesn't he talk to him?"

"He doesn't think he should unless he's asked." It was the father-son distance, she said, and he didn't think he should volunteer.

"Well," Boren responded, "I understand the feeling of a father but he's a former president and an expert in this area."

Barbara shook her head solemnly, almost woefully.

Later, Boren greeted Bush senior. "Do you ever see our mutual friend, Colin?" the former president asked.

"Just sometimes."

"Be sure to tell him I sure think he's doing a good job."

Both men knew Powell was the reluctant warrior, trying to solve the Iraq problem with diplomacy.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.114-5 Oct 1, 2006

George W. Bush: OpEd: Bush's lack of doubt meant more men fell for "honor"

Powell and Armitage engaged in a private, running commentary about Bush, Cheney, and what was really going on. Both wanted Bush to succeed, and they believed the Iraq War had to be won. "Don't they have moments of self-doubt?" Armitage asked Powell one day.

Powell said he had the same question. If you don't have self doubt, Powell said, if you didn't get up in the morning wondering if you're doing a good job, you're not worth much.

But doubt never seeped into the president's public rhetoric. And as far as Powell's and Armitage's experience went, he was the same in private. "What the president says in effect is we've got to press on in honor of the memory of those who have fallen. Another way to say that is we've got to have more men fall to honor the memories of those who have already fallen."

I had explored the issue of doubt with Bush in several interviews. He volunteered the following: "I have not doubted what we're doing. There is no doubt in my mind we're doing the right thing."

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 325 Oct 1, 2006

George W. Bush: Decision to invade Iraq was certain by fall 2002

In the fall of 2002, CIA chief George Tenet and Bush had a 30-second conversation in which Bush made it clear that war with Iraq was necessary and inevitable. Tenet was extremely surprised, but the president’s short remarks were made with such conviction that Tenet suddenly realized they were on a march to war. All the war planning had a specific purpose. Bush said that the risks presented by Saddam would grow with time. “We’re not going to wait,” he said.

One CIA analyst asked Tenet if it really looked like war. “You bet,” Tenet said bluntly. “It’s not a matter of if. It’s a matter of when. This president is going to war. Make the plans. We’re going.”

Tenet didn’t think that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. But Tenet never conveyed these misgivings to the president. Bush had never asked him directly for his bottom-line counsel, although Tenet felt that Bush had nonetheless opened the door to the point where Tenet could have said, “No, we shouldn’t do this.” But Tenet never said it.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 89-90&106 Oct 1, 2006

George W. Bush: 2002 NIE said Saddam making nukes by 2007; Bush said 2002

Bush was to give a speech on Oct. 7 2002 spelling out the case against Saddam. The CIA kept tabs on what Bush was going to say, and at one point realized that Bush planned to nake an alarming claim about a potential Saddam nuclear program, by charging that Iraq had been caught trying to buy uranium oxide in Africa.

“You need to take this sentence out because we don’t believe it,” CIA Directot Geroge Tenet said to Bush’s aide. The speech was edited to say “Many people have asked how close Saddam is to developing a nuclear weapon. We don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem.“ It was a modest claim that accurately reflected the National Intelligence Estimate. The to psecret NIE said that ”Iraq does not have a nuclear weapon but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009.“

But instead of saying that a nuclear Iraq was 5 years off, Bush warned, ”Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof--the smoking gun--that would come in the form of a mushroom cloud.“

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 97 Oct 1, 2006

George W. Bush: Post-war planning began in Jan.'03, including governing

On 1/20/2003, Bush signed a secret directive, NSPD-24. The subject: setting up an "Iraq Postwar Planning Office" within the Defense Department: "The US will want to be in a position to help meet the humanitarian, reconstruction, and administration challenges facing the country in the immediate aftermath of the combat operations."
    The presidential directive gave responsibility for all the tasks normally run by national, state and local governments in post-Saddam Iraq. The list included:
  1. Assisting with humanitarian relief
  2. Dismantling weapons of mass destruction
  3. Defeating and exploiting terrorist networks
  4. Protecting natural resources and infrastructure
  5. Facilitating the country's reconstruction and protection of its infrastructure and economy
  6. Assisting with the reestablishment of key civilian utilities
  7. Reshaping the Iraqi military
  8. Reshaping the other internal security institutions; and
  9. Supporting the transition to Iraqi-led authority over time.
Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.112 Oct 1, 2006

George W. Bush: Claimed 946 WMD sites “known”; none found

[After the invasion of Iraq, the US forces began searching for WMD, based on a list of 946 suspected sites known as the WMDMSL, or Weapons of Mass Destruction Master Site List. One analyst said], “946 sites! They couldn’t be wrong about all of them, could they?” But so far there had been no WMD stockpiles found.

Then on May 29, Bush declared, “We have found the WMD. We found biological laboratories. They’re illegal. They’re against the UN resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong. We found them.“

Bush made similar remarks in other interviews. The only problem was that the weapons hadn’t actually been found. Despite a series of highly publicized false positives, each time the military found a smoking gun--an alleged stockpile, a vat or even a small vial of biological weapons--it would soon be discredited.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.160&209-210 Oct 1, 2006

George W. Bush: Saudis recommended paying Iraq Army; Bush declined

In April 2003, [Saudi Arabia's] Prince Bandar went to the White House. Bandar expressed concern about stability in Iraq to Bush. "Take the top echelon off because of their involvement and their bloody hands," Bandar said. "But keep the colonels on down. Somebody has to run things."
  • Saudi Arabia shared a 500-mile border with Iraq, and stability in the aftermath was a major concern. The Saudis estimated that there were some 3 million retirees in Iraq, sitting at home, getting about the equivalent of $6 a month. "Go and pay them for 6 months, for God's sakes," Bandar advised. "Each of them supports a family, mind you. So from 3 million you could get the support of literally 10 million people. Suddenly you have a major constituency for you because you have paid them off."
  • It was the Saudi way. Paying 3 million retirees would amount to about $100 million. Bandar proposed doing the same with the Iraqi military. [Bush and Rumsfeld declined to pay the Iraqi military or retirees.]
    Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.163 Oct 1, 2006

    George W. Bush: Kay Report: WMDs never existed; hence WMD-related activities

    David Kay gave an interim report on Iraqi WMDs to Congress in Oct. 2003. “We have not yet found stocks of weapons,” Kay said, but said he had found “dozens of WMD-related program activities.” In essence, Kay was trying to have it both ways: No stockpiles had been found but they might someday be found.

    In his state of the union speech in Jan.2004, Bush did not refer to “WMD,” but to “weapons of mass destruction related program activities.” Kay urged others to follow the president’s lead, to stop talking about WMD, and to stop building a case for the Iraq war based on the actual weapons, “because you’re not going to find that.”

    “I don’t think they existed,” Kay said when asked about the WMD. “We were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself. It is important to acknowledge failure.”

    How did US intelligence miss all this? “We missed it because the Iraqis actually behaved like they had weapons,” Kay said. Saddam didn’t have WMD but wanted to appear as if he did. His purpose was deception.

    Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.258&277-278 Oct 1, 2006

    George W. Bush: CIA’s Tenet considered “slam dunk” his dumbest 2 words ever

    In April 2004, Plan of Attack was published, reporting that three months before the war, CIA Director George Tenet had twice told the president that the intelligence case on Iraq’s WMD was a “slam dunk.” Tenet later claimed he did not remember saying “slam dunk,” though he did not dispute it. He asserted that the meeting was to determine what intelligence could be made public to “market” the case for war, as reported in Plan of Attack.

    But a public case for war could hardly be a “slam dunk“ if the CIA Director did not believe that the underlying intelligence was also a ”slam dunk.“ Obviously, Tenet had believed it was, based on the NIE of three months earlier. Tenet has a strong case when he asserts that his ”slam dunk“ assertion did not cause the president to decide on war. Tenet believes Bush had already made the decision.

    In 2005, Tenet was asked publicly about the ”slam dunk“ comment. ”Those are the two dumbest words I ever said,“ h replied.

    Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.303-304 Oct 1, 2006

    John Murtha: Re-deploy from Iraq at the earliest practicable date

    Congressman Jack Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, introduced a resolution in Congress calling for American troops in Iraq to be “redeployed” -- the military term for returning troops overseas to their home bases -- “at the earliest practicable date.”

    Murtha, a former Marine and the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress, had voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the president to use military force in Iraq.

    “The war in Iraq is not going as advertised,” Murtha said. “It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.“ The military was suffering, he said on the House floor. Choking back tears, he added, ”Our military has done everything that has been asked of them. It is time to bring them home.“

    Speaker Dennis Hastert asserted that Murtha and other Democrats had ”adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the US surrender to the terrorists.“ A Republican resolution cynically twisted Murtha’s proposal b calling for an immediate troop pullout. It was defeated, 403-3.

    Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.423-3 Oct 1, 2006

    Newt Gingrich: 2003: Post-Iraq policy errors pushing US "off a cliff"

    In early December, Newt Gingrich decided to create some public pressure with his complaints about Bremer. "I was planting a flag because the things that had started in September weren't happening fast enough," he later explained. He gave an interview to Newsweek magazine in which he said the US was going "off a cliff" in Iraq.

    "I'm told over there that CPA stands for 'Can't Produce Anything,'" Gingrich told the magazine. He did not attack Bremer personally, but his core argument was that governing should have been placed in the hands of the Iraqis much sooner. Gingrich then went on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, December 7, 2003, and said the postwar model should have been what the US had done in Afghanistan, quickly installing Hamid Karzai.

    Iraqis wanted their own government, Gingrich said. "The longer we keep Americans front and center, the greater the danger that Iraqi nationalism will decide it has to be anti-American."

    Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.274 Oct 1, 2006

    • The above quotations are from State of Denial:
      Bush at War, Part III
      , by Bob Woodward.
    • Click here for definitions & background information on War & Peace.
    • Click here for other issues (main summary page).
    • Click here for more quotes by George W. Bush on War & Peace.
    • Click here for more quotes by Donald Rumsfeld on War & Peace.
    2016 Presidential contenders on War & Peace:
      Republicans:
    Gov.Jeb Bush(FL)
    Dr.Ben Carson(MD)
    Gov.Chris Christie(NJ)
    Sen.Ted Cruz(TX)
    Carly Fiorina(CA)
    Gov.Jim Gilmore(VA)
    Sen.Lindsey Graham(SC)
    Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR)
    Gov.Bobby Jindal(LA)
    Gov.John Kasich(OH)
    Gov.Sarah Palin(AK)
    Gov.George Pataki(NY)
    Sen.Rand Paul(KY)
    Gov.Rick Perry(TX)
    Sen.Rob Portman(OH)
    Sen.Marco Rubio(FL)
    Sen.Rick Santorum(PA)
    Donald Trump(NY)
    Gov.Scott Walker(WI)
    Democrats:
    Gov.Lincoln Chafee(RI)
    Secy.Hillary Clinton(NY)
    V.P.Joe Biden(DE)
    Gov.Martin O`Malley(MD)
    Sen.Bernie Sanders(VT)
    Sen.Elizabeth Warren(MA)
    Sen.Jim Webb(VA)

    2016 Third Party Candidates:
    Gov.Gary Johnson(L-NM)
    Roseanne Barr(PF-HI)
    Robert Steele(L-NY)
    Dr.Jill Stein(G,MA)
    Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
    Click for details -- or send donations to:
    1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
    E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org
    (We rely on your support!)

    Page last updated: Feb 24, 2019