Bush Admin Lying Machine coming apart, Be careful whose bed you choose to lie in McCain Options

[Hellfighter]

So here we go;
Straight from the source like never before;
One of Bush's own about to reveal the whole Bush Admin/neocon lying machine scheme-
No surprise really -but now its about to be officially 'explored'.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html

some doubters may venture to say he's just selling a book - but he seems to be like Colin Powell and the Generals who criticized the Iraq war from its outset, a virtuous person who was slapped around by the neocon villains in the admin revealing the formerly deliberately obscured facts for themselves for everyone to judge-finally.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/28/08 9:16am

[Hellfighter]

I'm not sure why having another view relegates someone to being 'sarcastic'/must be kidding'.
But rather than bother me so much, I find it reflects on the caller.

Sticking to facts is a clean debate. Interpretation of those facts is an opinion. Where's the need to declare someone going to great lengths in discussing a point as joking around or relegating the debate to foolery- unless the point of view of the issue clearly flies over one's head or the feeling of loss of an argument inspire's a lashing out by directly scoffing at someone in their face.

Clearly I'd have a field day directly inserting snipes as to 'intelligence'/'worthiness' of the opinion-maker themselves regarding why they think like they think.... but that would be easy. I'm sticking to facts and giving opinions about the principal players of the madness. If you're a neocon then I'd see reason for accusations of 'sarcastic' but I don't think you are.

With that out of the way its irrelevant what someone thinks as 'pointless' when there are obvious truths.
Lumping 'popular bandwagon conspiracies' to someone based on their views is pointless too.
ie,
Regarding Haliburton; that's never been my concern with Bush -even though it's obvious that is a case of playing favourites in allocation of contracts, that's not what I've ever claimed was a case in the decision to go to war -others here maybe-but you need to discuss that in depth with them. Why is there the inclination of Bush supporters to voice the opinion that since Clinton had similar activities that the repubs did then there is no case to dispute. Take this into consideration beforehand when making that asserton; some Bush critics also had issues with what Clinton did in his presidency -particularly at the end- yes even to me; but whereas he was the unique idiot at the end of his otherwise boyant 'reign', just about most the Bush admin have been first class clowns from day one -and I won't say Bush was the biggest one -he was more of a bent tool.

A committee not finding/assessing direct proof does not mean that there was no actual wrongdoing.
The actuallity shows very much there is/was a scam in action.
Regarding Bush+intel; he pushed the war button- he was coerced by his neocon cronies to get on a bandwagon to change/pacify the middle East by taking on a now or never crusade to assume control of Iraq and work the spread of democracy from there into Syria and Iran.
There's nothing to debate anymore on that for the rest of the world and 70% of Americans.
The big ongoing discussion about it goes beyond 'monday morning quarterbacking' - its about analyzing the carefully crafted scheme so that a whole nation doesn't get deceptively persuaded into a war again based on manipulated information and skewered ideals [look at Shrillary- last November she gave Bush carte blanche to move on Iran in the senate based on false info -even after she's been crying she was deceived into voting pro-war on Iraq!]..... thousands of troops died in a war they were told was about removing WMD/mushroom cloud threat-> thewar was a crusade -yes, to spread democracy/put a crush radical extremists cross borders- but that's not what anyone else was told. Pure Evil manipulation of a trusting public.

I care not if someone thinks I'm gullible about not believing the book is not put out solely for profit making;
When someone makes that remark I wonder if there's a capabilty to be able to see that everyone writing a book going against their own opinion is a pack of lies and has no merit except to rehash info already out there just for profit. I also wonder if throwing in 'gullible' is the most profound argument one can make instead of discussing the plain facts revealed in the book.
So go ahead with the bandwagon insinuations and gullible remarks,even if meant as a light poke.... I'm not going to throw them at you- you're smart; and I'll communicate with you at that level; going to the lower bar contributes nothing to this intense topic. I don't know why you have some of your opinions but it's not based on idiocy like those with the maximum comprehension to believe Obama is muslim.

I agree that Bush was cajoled by his neocon crew into much of the decision making he's made.
They were sleazy picks for the job at best that had little consideration for the massive misery they've caused needlessly in this Iraq crusade.
But the buck stops with Bush -he chose this crew; more for how loyal they could be than their dedication to democratic qualifications> Rowe, Rumsfeld, and Cheney most prominently. Or most likely he was manipulated into choosing such a cast....
Even McClellan wasn't the most qualified for the job as Press secretary- he was chosen as a loyal 'yes boy' who would tow the line faithfully. Well we know how that worked out.
Either way Bush has shown immense lack of character and lack of foresight and insight.
And thousands here and abroad paid with their lives needlessly as a result.
I'll tout Bush as 'Johnny on the spot'/rock solid from 9/12 to the invasion of Afghanistan. That's it.

Bush admin is puzzled by the book and its author - they're crying about being betrayed- of course they were.
But live and learn whiner neocons in the Whitehouse- people can be more secretive than they let on- they won't divulge all their beliefs to close friends. Naurally they only dispute the author's 180 degree turn on them - hardly any dispute is made about the confirmation of the Bush admin's scam-mathon.
Was it written with some vindictiveness as motivation? -sure.... But imo- he wrote it too because he wanted to clear the air now that his inclination to blind devotion to loyally standing by the neo-con crew was over. Only thing I didn't like from what I've read so far is his attack on the press as not pushing hard enough in finding out truths. The Bush machine has shown themselves to be the formidible masters of stonewalling/ smokescreens/ and poker faced lying.... it's not like the Press never tried hard enough.
Regardless beliefs have been confirmed by the facts of the book - the last leg the admin had to stand-on that criticisms levelled against them out of manufactured anf hyped propoganda, has just been blown out from under them.






This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/29/08 6:24am