All You Need to Know is Contained in the First 13 Pages
George W. pulled Bandar aside.
"Bandar, I guess you're the best asshole who knows about the world. Explain to me one thing."
"Governor, what is it?"
"Why should I care about North Korea?"
Bandar said he didn't really know. It was one of the few countries that he did not work on for King Fahd.
"I get these briefings on all parts of the world," Bush said, "and everybody is talking to me about North Korea."
"I'll tell you what, Governor," Bandar said. "One reason should make you care about North Korea."
"All right, smart alek," Bush said, "tell me."
"The 38,000 American troops right on the border." ..."If nothing else counts, this counts. One shot across the border and you lose half these people immediately. You lose 15,000 Americans in a chemical or biological or even regular attack. The United State of America is at war instantly."
"Hmmm," Bush said. "I wish those assholes would put things just point-blank to me. I get half a book telling me about the history of North Korea."
"Now I tell you another answer to that. You don't want to care about North Korea anymore?" Bandar asked. The Saudis wanted America to focus on the Middle East and not get drawn into a conflict in East Asia.
"I didn't say that," Bush replied.
"But if you don't, you withdrawl those troops back. Then it becomes a local conflict. Then you have the whole time to decide, 'Should I get involved? Not involved?' Etc."
At that moment, Colin Powell approached.
"Colin," Bush said, "come here. Bandar and I were shooting the bull, just two fighter pilots shooting the bull." He didn't mention the topic.
"Mr. Governor," Bandar said, "General Powell is almost a fighter pilot. He can shoot the bull almost as good as us."
Bob Woodward
State of Denial
2006
Bandar is not only an asshole, he's out of his depth on the Korean peninsula. Conflagrations occur in the DMZ from time to time and the last time I looked, we haven't nuked or been nuked. I don't believe the US will deliberately go to war for the ROK, though anything is possible in the realm of mistakes. Especially now that the ROK competes head on with the US and China is now an entity that does not pose the sort of problems that are ameliorated by US beligerence. This country won't fight to save Seoul (pun intended) any more than it will to save Taipei. I think US troops are still on the Korean peninsula simply because military spending remains a pump for the US economy.
Posted by: Douglas, Friend of Osho | 03 October 2006 at 07:51
This is about the single scariest thing I have ever read! With everything that's been reported (and not reported) in the past 6 years, that's saying something! Steven King is an amateur.
Posted by: FastMovingCloud | 09 October 2006 at 13:39
And why is Bob Woodward being considered such a hero now? He sat on this egregious shit for how many years and wrote two glowing books about Bush.
It makes me ill. I think he should be apologizing. It sickens me to agree with a Republican but it does seem he rode the Bush horse for as long as it was a good ride.
I am glad he finally came clean but this stuff should have come out sooner.
Posted by: Michael Brennan-White | 09 October 2006 at 13:54
Well, he seemed to know enough about North Korea to include them in the "axis of evil" speech. Shortly after which both Iran and North Korea resumed nuclear weapons programs. Of course Bush attacked the only one of the "axis" that didn't have a nuclear weapons program, or any other credible threat...
And he forgot all about the Taliban which is now re-gaining power, and actually DOES support terrorists.
*sigh*
Posted by: Paul Jackson | 09 October 2006 at 15:00
No fucking way. Wow.
Posted by: Andy | 09 October 2006 at 19:02
Mrs. C, "We just must renew George's subscription to Reader's Digest this year."
Mr C. "I agree, Dear. Does it also come condensed?"
Daughter C, "Oh that hurts. Not even you guys will buy my book?"
Posted by: mika | 09 October 2006 at 19:21
"Bandar and I were shooting the bull, just two fighter pilots shooting the bull."
Jesus, what a turd!
Posted by: BroD | 09 October 2006 at 20:19
I'm saying this here as a drive-by. Exclusive to Roxanne, because it came up here.
Woodward deserves as much credit as anyone. There is no point in trashing BW for what he has written previously:
1) not elected
2) DC insider with some of the best contacts ever
3) not elected
How "liberal" can you claim to be when you shoot the messenger for his last 2 books? Jeez, buy Hersh or something.
Criticize, sure. Anyone that writes anything deserves to be bisected, diced and fried in partially hydrogenated canola grease. I lost my point. mmmm. bacon.
Posted by: MelodyMaker | 09 October 2006 at 22:44
I don't believe I was hyper-critical of Woodward's two previous books. Is there someone specific you're referring to?
Posted by: Roxanne | 09 October 2006 at 22:49
Rox, nope. Not really. Just sayin.
There was a comment by MB-W above that was not too harsh, but I wanted to put the "liberal" in there. :) It means something to me. Thanks.
Posted by: MelodyMaker | 09 October 2006 at 23:05
"Bandar and I were shooting the bull, just two fighter pilots shooting the bull."
Uh, to be considered a fighter pilot, don't you have to have actually fought at some point?
Why is it that Dick "5 deferments" Cheney is considered more of a patriot than Clinton who got one deferment.
Hate to say it, America is getting what it deserves -- this country voted for him twice!
Posted by: Steve | 09 October 2006 at 23:10
Oh, did I just insult everyone? crap. I meant "liberal" as in.. crap. here:
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/
"I consider myself a liberal in the classic sense, i.e., someone who tries hard to approach issues with an open mind and to rely on empirical evidence and logical analysis (not rigid ideology) to guide my thinking."
What AL said.
Posted by: MelodyMaker | 09 October 2006 at 23:13
Gee, what a vast collection of intellectual acuity and all in one place! Wowzers! Now if it only had some practical point, would that not be something else?
Posted by: Sidney S. Keith | 10 October 2006 at 03:50
Steve, a fighter pilot's someone who's been tried to operate a fighter jet. My uncle retired as one after decades in the Navy and he never fought a day in his life, which chagrins my ex-Green Beret father to no end.
Sidney, I think my previous post has the practical point of reminding us that the PDRK's value is purely that of Bogeyman of East Asia, although I repeat that anything in the way of error is entirely possible.
Posted by: Douglas, Friend of Osho | 10 October 2006 at 08:57
"Uhhh..." Someone by definition is a fighter pilot if they pilot a jet fighter aircraft. And all you dee-de-dee's who read Woodward's book thinking that those were ver batim conversations? DURRRRRRRRR! Carlos Mencia is speaking to you when he talks about "Dee-de-dee".
Posted by: Mark | 10 October 2006 at 11:02
Withdrawl?!
Posted by: Thomas Long | 10 October 2006 at 11:13
Where does Woodie get all these verbatim quotes from?
Very difficult to believe that someone gave him an actual tape recording of a private presidential conversation, especially in this administration.
Please advise whether he explains this somewhere.
Because I will never buy one of that phony poser's books.
Posted by: Thomas Long | 10 October 2006 at 11:20
I think perhaps the first two books were bound in sheep cloth, allowing the kind of trust and access a wolf might need to get the insider info he really wants to share.
Posted by: rickygee | 10 October 2006 at 12:37
You have to be PRESENT on the base to be able to fly a fighter to be a fighter pilot. Maybe that answers the question.
Posted by: Dr G | 10 October 2006 at 14:02
And why is Bob Woodward being considered such a hero now? He sat on this egregious shit for how many years and wrote two glowing books about Bush.
...
Posted by: Michael Brennan-White
Perhaps his two first books were a way of gaining and consolidating the White House's trust - tongues are far looser with such a trust than without it, and with such a trust, Woodward had a far greater and easier access into the White House than he would have had without it. Just my opinion. :)
Posted by: Vierotchka | 10 October 2006 at 16:47
I think perhaps the first two books were bound in sheep cloth, allowing the kind of trust and access a wolf might need to get the insider info he really wants to share.
Posted by: rickygee
I hadn't read your post when I posted my above post, scrolled down past it to post my response to Michael Brennan-White - great minds, and all that! If we are right, Woodward knowingly and willingly took a lot of grief from the liberals for his first two books as he prepared and wrote this third one. That takes the kind of courage he showed during Watergate.
Posted by: Vierotchka | 10 October 2006 at 16:54
Carlos Mencia is speaking to you when he talks about "Dee-de-dee".
Posted by: Mark | Oct 10, 2006 11:02:31 AM
I would like to propose a rule that anyone who quotes Carlos Mencia, let alone finds him funny, should be banned from this board.
Posted by: MicheSmith | 10 October 2006 at 19:37
What a fantastic writer/person Dean Woodard is, thank you Dean, for the information. Just bought State of Denial, can't wait to go out and get the previous books.
Posted by: Lillie Vaden | 10 October 2006 at 23:44
In my previous comment, I referred to Bob Woodard as Dean Woodard, big mistake!
Posted by: Lillie Vaden | 10 October 2006 at 23:52
I love Carlos! Gotta stay in tune with youth of America...
Posted by: JM | 11 October 2006 at 08:51