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

[Robert]

some doubters may venture to say he's just selling a book

Does that mean he isn't trying to sell a book?

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.

Ohhh.... so now that he's saying what you agree with, he's suddenly virtuous?
I would agree that Powell was from the start , but this guy?
Sorry, don't think so.
This was his job for 3 years, he had to have known what was going on for at least part of new "sudden realizations", not conveniently 2 years after leaving his post as press secretary.

Looking down the list of excerpts from his book I don't see anything but rehashed information.

[Hellfighter]

some doubters may venture to say he's just selling a book

Does that mean he isn't trying to sell a book?

From my perspective he's relieving a sorrowful burden off his shoulders by divulging true information - selling the book for profits is not his agenda.

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.

Ohhh.... so now that he's saying what you agree with, he's suddenly virtuous?
I would agree that Powell was from the start , but this guy?
Sorry, don't think so.
This was his job for 3 years, he had to have known what was going on for at least part of new "sudden realizations", not conveniently 2 years after leaving his post as press secretary.

Looking down the list of excerpts from his book I don't see anything but rehashed information.

Of course he knew on most occasions,
but at times he didn't know on some occasions - take the Joe Wilson/wife Valerie cia leak.... he was point blank lied to about the Bush admin's lying scheme to cover up their role in leaking the agent's identity.
The same with Colin Powell - he wasn't trusted by the hard core neocons to be told the whole info at every turn and was deliberately misled. Colin Powell gave the speech to sell the war so I don't find him more virtuous than other honest members of the admin who went along with the plan out of 'loyalty'.
Of course he had the right to break ranks with what the admin was touting, but reading what's available so far, many in the Bush admin struggled with being loyal- over their honest personality and their desire not to go along with the lying scheming rats in the admin like Cheney, Gonzalez who did their nasty deeds with a smile.

As for rehashed information - info is out there -for the longest time- that Obama is not Muslim-but one third of Americans STILL believe he's muslim.
The importance of this developement is that it comes from someone IN the family; more credible proof that the 'rehashed info' is not so disputable as some would like to believe. Bush and the neocons know they're lying but now their smokescreen that covered up their schemes got fair amount of dissipitation with this book's welcome blast of fresh air. The wasteful war was based on lies and conceived for fairy tale reasons. We'll soon get to the truth of it.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/28/08 4:24pm

[Robert]

Don't hold your breath.....
The reality of the situation will probably never be dealt with because people are unable to look pass the stupid talking points.
Pretty much the exact same way you mention most people can't get past Osama not being a Muslim.
I'm willing to bet if you asked most people to list the 10 biggest failures of the bush administration, 80% of the people would list items so over simplified they would be pointless.
Here is a short list as an example of what I'm talking about.
No Bid contract - Actually there was a bid process in place prior to Iraq to come up with the plan to address the logistics of oil well fires if Saddam set fire to the oil fields the same way he did during the withdraw from Kuwait. To me it makes sense to have the people do it that came up with the approved plan and shown their ability to do it in the past.
Halliburton - How many times has their name been thrown out there.
The truth is they have been in the business of providing support to the US military since WWII, there is no big conspiracy here. At the senate request, the GAO has twice looked into the bid process and found no wrongdoing.
How many people now believe Halliburton is some evil company in some secret conspiracy involving Iraq.
I bet most of them would be surprised to learn the their profits doubled under Clinton not Bush.
Sure their overall revenues are higher now but their single biggest increase in profits was from contracts awarded during the Clinton Administration.
Chenny and his TIES to Halliburton
One small problem , he has no ties to them. He severed all financial ties to the company by selling all his stock in the company when he accepted the VP nomination. The only money he had yet to receive for the company was part of a 5 year payout of his last years salary. Which he setup in a trust to pay college tuition for low income students.
So the only financial tie to the company, he has no control over, will never see a penny of and all goes to charity.
Yet, people can;t stop talking about Cheehy's close ties to Halliburton and his war profiting.
Bush coerced the intel about Iraq an possible WMD's Two democratic ran senate sub-committees looked into that and neither one found any proof of it.
Bush and his ties to big oil
That one is so stupid I can only roll my eyes.

Here is what I see as the real problem.
Let's take Haliburton.
While I completely disagree with the common and oversimplified issues brought up concerning Haliburton, I by no means am saying they are clean of any wrong doing, just not the stupid and pointless rhetoric you hear about them.
How many senators have spoken out about the evil Haliburton as a way to attack the Bush Administration?
More than I can name.
Then the next question would be, how many have done anything by introducing legislation to prevent some of the accounting abuses Halliburton is actually responsible for?
That would be a big fat zero.
So Halliburton is great when it comes to an attack issue, but now worth their time an effort to do anything about prevent the same kinds of abuses they publicly accuse the company of.
Even worse is the "cost plus" feature in how they bill for services.
Sure it makes sense when it part of a critical job.
For normal non-critical functions it does nothing but creates unneeded expense for every service.
I would love to see legislation introduced to prevent or greatly limit "cost plus" billing and the financial abuses it allows by ANY company doing work for the government.


BTW I hope you were being sarcastic when you said selling the book for profit wasn't his agenda.
I would hate to think you were actually that gullible.
Also, I find it strange that every news station has defined this as a Anti-Bush book when the author himself says Bush's biggest problem was "terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.”
Goes on to say how Bush was deceived by Rowe and Libby.

I'm still amazed after everything that has gone wrong with Iraq and the Bush Administration in general, people still get stuck on these rather benign side issue's.

[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

[pezking]

Well, so far the White House is spinning this as "he wasn't given this much information" and his former co-workers are saying "back stabber." Now, if he had made it all up, I think co-workers would say "liar", not "backstabber."

I think he's totally looking to make a profit from this, whether it's true, false, or just historical fiction. I think the only reason people write books, get them published, etc... is to make some money, unless he's trying to time this to add a speed bump to McCain's bid for presidency. I do agree that it could partially be a guilty conscience issue, one huge reason Powell vowed to never get into politics again. Kind of wish Powell would throw his hat in the VP pool, always thought he was very intelligent and had some good morals (probably why he left the political sandbox.)

[Shred]

Druid for President.

[HammaTime]

News clipping:

One former Bush aide, however, is sticking up for McClellan, arguing that the former Bush press secretary is "getting savaged for saying what everyone knows to be true."

Mike Turk served as the eCampaign director for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. As such, his tenure corresponded with that of McClellan's. No longer connected to the administration, Turk is now one of the few (if any) voices with connections to that crowd who are saying, quite simply, that the book "What Happened" is steeped in little more than truth.

"After watching McClellan on Today this morning, I think the reception his book received exemplifies the point he was making," Turk said.


I certainly believe McClellan is speaking truth to power. This administration has been a failure by almost any measure.

I'm probably the only one here who actually has met the man. He may be interested in making money for his book, and why shouldn't he? Won't all of the players in this sad saga eventually tread the same path? No one is claiming he is spouting lies. Nothing speaks louder than that.

This post has been edited by HammaTime: 05/29/08 2:10pm

[Hellfighter]

........I do agree that it could partially be a guilty conscience issue, one huge reason Powell vowed to never get into politics again. Kind of wish Powell would throw his hat in the VP pool, always thought he was very intelligent and had some good morals (probably why he left the political sandbox.)

Hey Pez!!! Good to see you again. It took me a year to finally not feel bad about changing from your sig you made for me to my new one!

Yes I know he's out to make a profit selling his book, however as you indicated also there are other personal reasons he set out to make the book imo.
Notice in my initial post I did stress he wrote the book, " not JUST for profit".... however in spite of that, the meaning still got twisted to mean that I said he wrote the book without no thought of profit in mind. Of course he could be looked upon as a traitor -no argument there -but so was Col.Stauffenberg when he joined the anti-Hitler plotters - treachery doesn't necessarily make the actor a bad person- as is being hyped up by McClellan's former staff mates who are in 'shock and awe' at his 180 turn on certain radicals amongst them. For him to spill his guts like that and putting out his neck so far, indicates an agenda beyond JUST profiteering from a book - and in the sense of shedding light into a dark corner of rats....imo

..........No one is claiming he is spouting lies. Nothing speaks louder than that.

And that says it all..... from my view.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/29/08 2:58pm

[HammaTime]

Did anyone else catch the amazing 50 minute interview with Olbermann tonight? His demeanor said it all to me. You could see the man viscerally react when he explained how he learned from the President himself that he had approved of the leaking of the NIE.

He so clearly was a team player until he saw that his leader was willing to do incredibly harmful things for political gain.

[Robert]

I can't wait to check all my favorite political forums tomorrow to see how much his interview gets twisted.
You guys already know I'm not a big fan of Olbermann.
With that said, I can't believe how many times he tried to put words in McClellan's mouth while at the exact same time saying "I don't want to put words in your mouth".

As for the leaking of the NIE report.
Not near as damaging as people will try an make that out to be, if you think so then you must of missed these points during the interview.
1) McClellan "The president has the legal authority to declassify the NIE report"
Which isn't or shouldn't be news to anyone but people will try an make it out to something else.

2) Then there is this exchange...
Olbermann " On approving the release of the NIE report did bush in essence or legally okay the leaking of Valerie Plame CIA Identity?"
McClellan "I do not believe the president was in any way involved with the leaking of her identity"
I'm willing to bet big buck's that line will be skipped over every time this interview is discussed.

3) Olbermann list dozens of what he calls Bush's failures.
What did McClellan say he though was Bush's biggest failure?
"He reached across to democrats as Governor but failed to do so as President"
Again he didn't blame Bush, but the "Partisan Politics of Washington"

Overall, if you remove Olbermann near constant attempts to put words in his mouth or framing his questions to get the answers he wanted.
I didn't really see the interview as all that damaging to Bush.
I counted 6 separate times where McClellan pointed to the problem as "Washington Politics"
I honestly expected at least one big reveal during the interview, I didn't see any.
I lost track of how many times Olbermann asked him about something and McClellan he didn't know anything about that.

Does everyone remember When Clark did his book?
Does everyone remember how his story changed from what he said on the talk circuit while trying to sell his book and what was said when he was put under oath at the 9-11 commission?
I will be very curious to see if McClellan changes any of his story if he's goes under oath.
Which may happen since the Democratic Congressman from Florida has just called for McClellan to testify under oath before the House Judiciary Committee.
With that in mind, how did McClellan reply when Olbermann asked about going before Congress?
He saw no need or any interest in doing so as he's already said what he had to say.


If anyone thought this book was going to be a smoking gun.
Sorry, but so far it's firing blanks.

[whodat]

If anyone thought this book was going to be a smoking gun.
Sorry, but so far it's firing blanks.

Well, sometimes firing blanks is not a bad thing.

[Hellfighter]

.........
With that said, I can't believe how many times he tried to put words in McClellan's mouth while at the exact same time saying "I don't want to put words in your mouth".
-

I caught parts of the show and yes from what I saw Keith O' was doing alot of his typical spin on 'channeling' his own views onto McClellan.
But - give McClellan credit for sticking to his own obvious efforts in 'not going there' and not allowing himself into being twisted into a mere propoganda tool on the show. -those 'don't knows' were true words spoken and reflects an honest character even under somewhat conditions of duress - 1st primetime appearance on tv explaining his radical turnaround with an overbearing/demanding host [and he's [keith O'] a physically big-daunting guy too].
He spoke his truth humbly and persuasively at his own tempo - it all gives overwhelming credence to the sincerity of the 'other' earnest reasons why he wrote the book.
The book wasn't about being a smoking gun.... it just substantiated what nearly everyone believed for years [even most of the 25% who stand with the Bush admin but are in denial]- up until now the Bush Lying Machine proved to be expert firefighters in smothering their lies with blankets of lies to the extent people probing for the truth simply got fed up with the overwhelming task of eeking out the proof of the truth.
Well that's all over now. The Iraq Crusade, and the neocon Backstabber/namecaller Club has been revealed as fact by an honest former insider.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/30/08 6:47am

[Robert]

I don't know how you got that form the interview.
The single most damaging critique of WHY someone wrote a book comes from none other than McClellan himself
This is what McClellan said when Richard Clark released his "Tell All Book"
"Well, why, all of a sudden, if he (Richard Clarke) had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book."
Well the exact same thing can be said about McClellan , except he waited 2 and a half years later where Clark only waited 18 months.

I find it hilarious that not so long ago every Dem/Lib would have called McClellan or anyone else associated with Bush, liars, traitors, anti-American, scumbags, NeoCons, etc.
NOW SUDDENLY, when McClellen, decides to write a book, to make MONEY. Then and only then, every Dem/Lib who until just this moment would have been calling him a liar, traitor, scumbags, NeoCon suddenly wants to listen to him and be his friend. While at the same time trying to make his book appear to be more devasating an disparaging of Bush than it really is.

You want to know what question I would love to hear any of these interviewers ask McClellan?
A question I guarantee they will never ask.
"Mr McClellan, let me ask you this. If you knew in 2000 and 2004 what you know now, would have you still voted for Bush"
From everything he's said so far, I think he would say Yes.
If he would say Yes, then that one answer would completely blow away everything they ( Bush's critics )
are trying to do by spinning this book the way they are.
Which is why I'm sure you will never see anyone ask that question.
Now be honest about this, If you think the answer would be No.
Then are you willing to admit that a question similar to that would have been asked, probably last night?

[HammaTime]

Wow, Robert, where can I get a pair of those rose colored glasses??

My friend, you seem forever locked into the Republicans vs. Democrats paradigm. The issue here is NOT a party/politics issue. The issue is how a group of people turned Democracy on its head and horribly corrupted the system.

I have good friends in Washington who have been life-long Republicans, just like McClellan, and they have taken off their rose colored glasses and see the situation for what it is. Our government has been corrupted by people who don't understand the difference between politics and policy. If you doubt what I am saying, go take a look at the management of Homeland Security. Do a little digging to see who Bush has put in charge. These are people absolutely DEVOID of the experience that would have been mandatory under any other administration. As a life-long conservative, a senior official told me, "it is like we've become the Soviet Union."

Robert, I'm sure I don't have to remind you that the details of the NIE leaked to Judy Miller of the New York Times were claims that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and he was intent on acquiring materials for nuclear weapons. We now know that was utterly, and contemptibly false. That is what you get when you confuse politics with policy. Everything becomes FUBAR, and that is where our country finds itself today!

As for the question, "would you have voted for Bush," I think the answer is painfully obvious. He actually answered your question quite clearly when he responded positively toward the Obama campaign before mentioning McCain.