So, Bush shares top secret info with a terrorist. *Yawn*
 

This is from Bob Woodwards, one of the guys who brought down the Nixon Presidency, new book.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in612067.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4661093/

Bush shared the TOP SECRET plans for war with Iraq with Prince Bandar before he showed some of the most important members of his own cabinet. Including Powell Doesn't that seem ODD to anyone else here?

It's just...
Hell I don't have the strength to express the outrage that america should be feeling over this President.

I'm sorry. I guess it all just means I am a partisan who will find fault with anything Bush does. It's just sharing secret war plans with someone we all know has been funnelling money to terrorists for years. Whatever.

Just move on to the next outrage I guess.

There seems to be some dispute over the assertion that Powell was briefed after Bandar.

The President has the right to share such information with those people he deems fit.

Misappropriations is bad.

Actually no.

Well, right, but the president is the comander in chief. If he wants the change that to "Top Secret - No Forigen, except Prince Bandar" he can. We can argue about the wisdom of doing this, but he doesn't need to get permission from anyone to do this (who would he get permission from anyway?)

Now if the assertion is that Cheney did this without the president's knowledge, that would be a different story. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

How is Prince Bandar a terrorist? He's a diplomat from Saudi Arabia. Are you suggesting that every Arab is a terrorist, or are you simply trolling for some negative responses?

right on seretogis.

and just because it appears in a bob woodward book doesn't make it fact. he has everything to gain from arranging or describing the events in such a way as to create controversy.

This is absolutely correct. The Executive Branch is the one that classifies and controls classified information. The President can classify and declassify at will.

Maybe he's doing both! Mwuahahahhaha... Mwuahahahaha... Mwuahahah... Mwuah... Mwu... Hah.

http://www.hollywood-costumes.com/au.../evilgreyb.jpg

Seriously, seretogis, don't you usually whine about questions that are phrased like that?

From Human Rights Watch, the first thing I googled from a search of "saudi arabia human rights":

These people aren't terrorists?

Islamic Law. Not terrorism.

Seemingly barbaric compared to our judicial system, yes. Terrorism, no.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if we beheaded those who commit murder, rape, armed robbery, or drug smuggling. It would be quite the deterrant. Instead, we pay through the nose for them to sit in prison for years and years only to be released and re-offend. I suppose this part of the discussion belongs on another thread, though.

Feel free to prove to me that this thread is anything but a shameless troll. Until that point, our large green friend will look on, tongue out and club ready:

http://www.seretogis.org/files/linkables/troll.gif

Well, the thread is actually about a book that suggests Bush had shared "Top Secret" information with a questionable person and allegedly before even Powell got a hand on it, and the possible misappropriations of funds to back the preparation for this war.

Somehow it's derailed towards ruminations on whether or not Saudi Arabia is a terrorist state, what their laws are compared to ours... pretty much everything but the subject matter.

If it doesn't straighten up, it won't matter if it's a troll, because it'll be locked for being horribly off-topic. :) Just a friendly warning.

Well Sere, I DID provide everyone with a link to the very substantial suspicions about Bandar's connection to terrorism. It was my second link. I reprint it here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4661093/

Let us go specifically to this:

and this

etc.

Is it proven? No, but there is an ongoing investigation. And there is a litany of evidence of the Saudi's paying out to terrorist organizations throughout the world. So rationally, here, I think we can all drop the pretenses and admit this guy is dirty.

Maybe you didn't bother to check all the links before you declared this post a troll. Be more careful next time.

The President has the right to show his Top Secret war plans to whoever he wishes. But it is really fucked up when he shows someone being investigated for funding terrorist organizations these plans before his own Secretary of State, who will be expected to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq after the military blows it up.

Any comments on securing a promise from Bandar of lowering oil prices in time for the November elections? Or the misappropriation of 700 million dollars meant for Afghanistan?

Playing politics with america's energy supply.
McClellan won't even deny it. Just dodges the question repeatedly.

Don't understand the point of calling Bandar a terrorist. It really just gives the conservatives on this board a way out from facing the real issues that Woodward's book presents. Of course, they'd probably still come up with a response like "Clinton did it too" or "Woodward is just trying to sell a book", but at least they'd have to think about it. I'd like to hear something from them since all I've heard from conservatives elsewhere is silence.

I'm sorry. I see him as a terrorist. He may not actively plan any attacks but his funding makes him just as cuplable. If everyone prefers I can just start calling him a terrorist funder, though, I don't see the difference.

I ignored the assertion that he's a terrorist since it's all hearsay and no progress would be made on such a discussion.

I discussed the fact that there is a difference of opinion about the assertion that Powell wasn't informed.

and

I corrected the mistaken impression that the President couldn't share information with those he deemed appropriate.

I think I offered more than a Clinton did it too. Although I strongly suspect that Clinton did share Top Secret information with foreign representatives (since I'm 99.9% sure that every President has done the same).

The assertion that he's trying to sell a book is true. Otherwise why write it and get paid for it? The fact that someone is making money on offering their opinion should at least be considered when you're trying to judge the reliability of the source and the possible biases involved. Just as the motivations of conservative authors should be called into question.

There's an awful lot of people with insider acess to the Bush White House who are lying just to sell a book.

to your point of "yawn. just move on to the next outrage", I say:

Why change horsemen mid-apocalypse? Bush-Cheney 04...

I would like to hear a Bush supporter explain Bush's misappropriation of 700 million specifically earmarked to the Afghanistan war, (y'know, the one that was supposed to catch those responsible for attacking America) but instead used towards preparations for the iraq war.


Anyone?

When details of it are offered I will gladly make an assessment. Right now there sure seems to be lots of speculation around it and no substantive facts associated with the assertion.

We give details
 

Bob Woodward disclosed in his book that President Bush in July of 2002 diverted $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress

According to Woodward, Bush kept Congress "totally in the dark on this” leaving lawmakers with "no real knowledge or involvement."

The Constitution gives Congress the purse strings and both supplemental bills that Bush drew this 700 million from had specific language in it. Bush had discretion with how to spend the money but was obligated to inform congressional leaders.

9/11 emergency appropriations
The President had discretion to spend this $10 billion of the post-9/11 Emergency Supplemental bill, the legislation specifically obligated the President to "consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer" of any funds.

The WH used vague and misleading words to describe how it was spending this money. Never mentioning Iraq whatsoever in the descriptions.
It used wording like "increased situational awareness" and "increased worldwide posture"
Link 1
Link 2

In the Aug '02 supplemental. Bush moved several hundred millions of dollars.
The wording of the supplemental stated that: the funds could be moved "15 days following notification to the appropriate Congressional committees."
Aug Supplemental

The administration cannot provide one shred of evidence of a transfer notice for supplemental funding that mentions Iraq. Source

On Tuesday Senator Roberty Byrd said that the Admin "the Bush White House provided no consultations as required by law" Byrd was the chairman of the appropriations committee at the time (2002)

Re: We give details
 

What you've got there is Bob Woodward's opinion of what happened and people's interpretation of what "should" have been done without any knowledge about if anything else was done. There is no specific information about what $700 million it was, who transferred it, what notice was required, when that notice was required to be given, what form that notice needed to take, etc, etc, etc.

It's far too soon to make any statements about it beyond, I will be interested in seeing what all the details are. Anything further is pure speculation and it's not worth discussing.

Prince Bandar is a member of the Saudi Royal Family - the same Royal Family that sponsored a national telethon to raise $150 M for the surviving family members of palestinian suicide bombers, and regularly makes large contributions to "charities" known for being fronts for terrorist organizations Do you really have to connect a lot of dots to get from there to "possible security threat?"

The information was given to him because the Bush family and the Saudi Royal Family have been in bed together; making each other very rich for decades. Prince Bandar is just doing his part in lowering oil prices before the election to help out his business partner, Bush.

Please don't tell me anyone is surprised by this.

Oh - and diveritng $700M for his war, without the approval of Congress, was not "executive privilege," it was <i>illegal</i>.

Assuming, of course, that Bob Woodward (and the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Comittee) didn't make all this up.

I think the real issue is not if someone is a terrorist, or that someone moved around alot of money illegally.. The original topic here was that Bush felt it more important to tell a buddy (leader of a country or not, he is still a buddy) about the war plans before he knew he could go to war (the President can't send the country to war, he doesn't have that right under the consitution).. I think of all people, Powell should be the outraged. This is the what.. fifth time? He has made Powell look like an idiot.. I'll sit back and wait for Powell's book ( I can see "Following the chain of command: how I was led around the world to promote war - The Colin Powell story)?