The headline reads: "U.S. spied on Iraqi leaders, new book says" but the real shockers as reported in the article are far less mundane.
In response to a question about how the White House settled on a troop surge of five brigades after the military leadership in Washington had reluctantly said it could provide two, Bush said: "Okay, I don't know this. I'm not in these meetings, you'll be happy to hear, because I got other things to do."Say what? Happy to hear that you don't attend meetings concerning the commitment of US troops?
During the interviews with Woodward, the president spoke of the war as part of a recentering of American power in the Middle East. "And it should be," Bush said. "And the reason it should be: It is the place from which a deadly attack emanated. And it is the place where further deadly attacks could emanate."Excuse me, but no deadly attack emanated from Iraq. Afghanistan, perhaps Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Was our attack on Iraq supposed to scare Saudi extremists like Bin Laden? This is the most daft national security strategy ever. And it has failed to boot. The really scary part of thi sis that Bush has managed to cling to this belief for 7 years.