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.
Full Version: Bush Admin Lying Machine coming apart
QUOTE(Hellfighter @ 05/28/08 9:11am) 
some doubters may venture to say he's just selling a book
Does that mean he isn't trying to sell a book?QUOTE(Hellfighter @ 05/28/08 9:11am)
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.
QUOTE(Robert @ 05/28/08 2:14pm)
QUOTE(Hellfighter @ 05/28/08 9:11am)
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.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Hellfighter @ 05/28/08 9:11am)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
Druid for President.
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.
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.
QUOTE(pezking @ 05/29/08 9:28am)
........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
QUOTE(HammaTime @ 05/29/08 3:10pm)
..........No one is claiming he is spouting lies. Nothing speaks louder than that.
And that says it all..... from my view.
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.
He so clearly was a team player until he saw that his leader was willing to do incredibly harmful things for political gain.
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.
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.
QUOTE(Robert @ 05/30/08 12:25am)
If anyone thought this book was going to be a smoking gun.
Sorry, but so far it's firing blanks.
QUOTE(Robert @ 05/30/08 12:25am)
.........
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".
-
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
I thought his remarks about McCain were just as positive maybe even more so.
McClellan said he thought the biggest problem was partisan politics.
Which by the way is something I strongly agree with him about.
He liked Osama for SAYING he would reach out to the other side, then added he liked McCain because he has already shown he's willing to do so because of the bipartisan legislation he's been part of.
Don't know where you get the idea I'm wearing rose colored glasses.
I'm only pointing out how this book had less to do with Bush than the the partisan politics of Washington.
It's the same partisan politics you're accusing me of that is trying to make this book into some more than it is.
As far as the "Republicans vs. Democrats paradigm" you mention.
That's exactly what I see as the real problem.
No one is really facing the problems of the day.
We are left with the Dem's, who for their own political gains try to portray Bush as the anti-Christ of presidents.
While the Repub's in an attempt to save their political ass, spend their time defending Bush.
For example, in 2004, 2006, how many Dems got elected to congress on a get out of Iraq platform?
What have they done so far?
Osama and Clinton both made a large part of the presidential bid on getting out of Iraq.
All I want to know is at what cost?
I completely agree Iraq is a total cluster fuck, largely in part to how poor a job Bush and his administration did not only conducting the war but inability to keep support for it.
What I don't believe is this silly an completely unfounded idea it was a planned and purposeful conspiracy laid out by Bush for his own personal reasons.
It was a knee jerk reaction to 9-11
They were looking for a target to push the war on terrorism, Iraq appaered to be one of the next logicial steps.
A step which later turned out to be wrong but was understandable considering the Intel available at the time.
I'm more than willing to admit one of America's biggest mistakes was the near free pass Bush got going into Iraq.
My problem now is I'm just as sick of the free pass the Dem's are getting with their Bush was wrong we need to get out of Iraq rhetoric. They sell that point again an again but have completely failed to admit what it will mean to Iraq and the whole middle east if we leave based on some impromptu timetable.
It drives me nuts when the Dems in congress continue to point the finger at Bush, trying to lay Iraq solely at his feet. Did they forget about the system of checks and balances put into place that they are part of as members of congress?
How many of them have been so outspoken about Iraq, yet have voted for each Iraq spending bill because they were able to put enough of their own pork in it?
I'll make this clear so there will be no misunderstandings.
While I consider myself a Conservative, I do not consider myself a Republican.
I would be a libertarian if it wasn't for their stance on open immigration.
I voted for Bush both times and would do so again based on who he was running against.
If Wesley Clark had won the nomination in 2004, I would have voted for him even though he's a democrat.
As for Bush.
I completely support his sweeping policy change where acts of terrorism would no longer be viewed as criminal acts but as military attacks against the US.
While I'm disappointed with how Iraq was handled, I for one can see the intent and benefits of democracy taking even a small hold in Iraq.
In fact that would have to be one of my biggest criticisms about Olbermann's interview last night.
Olbermann tried to make it out to be some horrible thing that the US would be involved in trying to spread democracy, another Bush Blunder in his view.
What? where has he been the last 40 years?
I think there is plenty of proof that democracy and the advancement of personal freedoms leads to peace.
Is that not what happened in places like Germany, Japan and Russia?
Something else I wanted to expand upon.
In this topic and almost every politic blog/forum I've read today brings up Bush leaking the NIE report.
There is an important distinction I think everyone is missing.
Bush didn't leak the report.
He as President had legal authority to declassify the report in full or in part.
Straight from the interview last night.
McClellan "The president has the legal authority to declassify the NIE report"
If anyone else would have released the information it would have been an illegal leak of classified information.
It wasn't an illegal leak, it was legally declassified.
So why does everyone still insist on referring to it as a leak?
Why? because referring to it as leak makes it sound more menacing.
BTW does everyone know what the NIE report was?
A report 4 democratic senate leaders requested to see if the most current intelligence information on available on Iraq would affirm or conflict with the information put out by the Bush administration.
An independently request and compiled report which did in fact support the majority of Bush's previous claims concerning suspected WMD's in Iraq.
Tell me again just where the breaking news story is in that?
What was declassified by Bush in no way directly lead to the leak of Valerie Plame CIA Identity.
That was outside of the information he wanted released.
BTW Libby was not found guilty of purposefully leaking Plame's Identity, only lying about his part in it.
Regardless of how some news outlets try an act like it, there was never any evidence the leak of Plame Identity was done on purpose.
I will agree Libby should have gone to jail for his part in it.
I will even say Bush was 100% wrong to pardon Libby.
McClellan said he thought the biggest problem was partisan politics.
Which by the way is something I strongly agree with him about.
He liked Osama for SAYING he would reach out to the other side, then added he liked McCain because he has already shown he's willing to do so because of the bipartisan legislation he's been part of.
Don't know where you get the idea I'm wearing rose colored glasses.
I'm only pointing out how this book had less to do with Bush than the the partisan politics of Washington.
It's the same partisan politics you're accusing me of that is trying to make this book into some more than it is.
As far as the "Republicans vs. Democrats paradigm" you mention.
That's exactly what I see as the real problem.
No one is really facing the problems of the day.
We are left with the Dem's, who for their own political gains try to portray Bush as the anti-Christ of presidents.
While the Repub's in an attempt to save their political ass, spend their time defending Bush.
For example, in 2004, 2006, how many Dems got elected to congress on a get out of Iraq platform?
What have they done so far?
Osama and Clinton both made a large part of the presidential bid on getting out of Iraq.
All I want to know is at what cost?
I completely agree Iraq is a total cluster fuck, largely in part to how poor a job Bush and his administration did not only conducting the war but inability to keep support for it.
What I don't believe is this silly an completely unfounded idea it was a planned and purposeful conspiracy laid out by Bush for his own personal reasons.
It was a knee jerk reaction to 9-11
They were looking for a target to push the war on terrorism, Iraq appaered to be one of the next logicial steps.
A step which later turned out to be wrong but was understandable considering the Intel available at the time.
I'm more than willing to admit one of America's biggest mistakes was the near free pass Bush got going into Iraq.
My problem now is I'm just as sick of the free pass the Dem's are getting with their Bush was wrong we need to get out of Iraq rhetoric. They sell that point again an again but have completely failed to admit what it will mean to Iraq and the whole middle east if we leave based on some impromptu timetable.
It drives me nuts when the Dems in congress continue to point the finger at Bush, trying to lay Iraq solely at his feet. Did they forget about the system of checks and balances put into place that they are part of as members of congress?
How many of them have been so outspoken about Iraq, yet have voted for each Iraq spending bill because they were able to put enough of their own pork in it?
I'll make this clear so there will be no misunderstandings.
While I consider myself a Conservative, I do not consider myself a Republican.
I would be a libertarian if it wasn't for their stance on open immigration.
I voted for Bush both times and would do so again based on who he was running against.
If Wesley Clark had won the nomination in 2004, I would have voted for him even though he's a democrat.
As for Bush.
I completely support his sweeping policy change where acts of terrorism would no longer be viewed as criminal acts but as military attacks against the US.
While I'm disappointed with how Iraq was handled, I for one can see the intent and benefits of democracy taking even a small hold in Iraq.
In fact that would have to be one of my biggest criticisms about Olbermann's interview last night.
Olbermann tried to make it out to be some horrible thing that the US would be involved in trying to spread democracy, another Bush Blunder in his view.
What? where has he been the last 40 years?
I think there is plenty of proof that democracy and the advancement of personal freedoms leads to peace.
Is that not what happened in places like Germany, Japan and Russia?
Something else I wanted to expand upon.
In this topic and almost every politic blog/forum I've read today brings up Bush leaking the NIE report.
There is an important distinction I think everyone is missing.
Bush didn't leak the report.
He as President had legal authority to declassify the report in full or in part.
Straight from the interview last night.
McClellan "The president has the legal authority to declassify the NIE report"
If anyone else would have released the information it would have been an illegal leak of classified information.
It wasn't an illegal leak, it was legally declassified.
So why does everyone still insist on referring to it as a leak?
Why? because referring to it as leak makes it sound more menacing.
BTW does everyone know what the NIE report was?
A report 4 democratic senate leaders requested to see if the most current intelligence information on available on Iraq would affirm or conflict with the information put out by the Bush administration.
An independently request and compiled report which did in fact support the majority of Bush's previous claims concerning suspected WMD's in Iraq.
Tell me again just where the breaking news story is in that?
What was declassified by Bush in no way directly lead to the leak of Valerie Plame CIA Identity.
That was outside of the information he wanted released.
BTW Libby was not found guilty of purposefully leaking Plame's Identity, only lying about his part in it.
Regardless of how some news outlets try an act like it, there was never any evidence the leak of Plame Identity was done on purpose.
I will agree Libby should have gone to jail for his part in it.
I will even say Bush was 100% wrong to pardon Libby.
Spreading democracy is fine by me...
But when giving a case for war before the world have the guts to say that; giving a manufacured cunniving reason is a disgusting scheme when it involves the destruction of many lives.
Tell the soldiers you're sending them to spread democracy Imperialism style because the public and political process is 100% behind such an effort.....
If a President/admin is lying his/herway into a war - with 'spread of democracy' as a hopeful by-product of an idealistic Crusade that numbskull is a total fraud.... he tricked people into giving their lives for his neocon crew's scheme.
That's the point.... The sell for war was about 'imminent mushroom clouds' NOT to spread democracy nor to get rid of the big bad wolf.
Claiming WMDs in Iraq is not proof wmds exist -therefore where is the credible threat of imminent mushroom clouds- let alone as proof to go to war-
That's why NOBODY pushed a button to go to war based on 'claims' - neither did Bush push that button - at the prodding of his Crusader chums he twisted the reports deliberately to push for a war for other unveiled reasons.
Remind me its ok to plead with firefighters to run into a flaming building to bring out a baby wrapped in a blanket in a closet when really its a bundled up stash of jewelry,passport,wallet
ie,-important 'stuff'; but not certainly worth anyones ones life for.... in particular lying to them about it.
What other options did Japan, Germany, Russia have but to yield to democracy- Japan and Germany were gutted as nations at wars end - would the Allies have allowed anything but a democracy to be set-up in these former warlike-military tradition nations??? These beaten down nations had no economy or capability to exist without staring at oblivion unless they got with the democracy program and did like the Romans when in Rome/world community rebuilding after global war.
Russia was breaking apart at the seams for financial reasons -they had to accept democracy or else come to ruin themselves -furthermore their citizens throughout the Soviet block CHOSE democracy themselves... no armies marched into their nations/states and told them to 'choose it'.
"Support the troops" / "You have no patriotism if you don't like our neocon ideals" were the battlecries from this Prez -amongst others.... all were shallow blasts of hot air -> Soldiers definitely want to see people around the world enjoy democracy rather than suffering under extremist regimes; but these soldiers are doing 3 or 4 tours /suicide rates at record highs / proposed G.I Bill to help vets out stalled by McCain. What's the Iraqi army of 350,000+ doing now -and with the $2 billion its getting from the admin.
The difference between Clarke and McClellan and their book's being published;
NONE -I'm not sure why there's a tendency to focus on what a book was written for when these books contents are what packs the punch in revealing truths that cannot be disputed. Who's calling McClellan a liar?!! nope- if they [the 'club' at the Whitehouse] can't do that they'll just stomp their feet with only bloated indignation about the tattle-taler.
-both books reveal the whole crud of the neocon machine at its nasty work from the inside- with bottom line facts about this admin's reckless playbook all laid out for all eternity to mull through with astonished repulsion.
But when giving a case for war before the world have the guts to say that; giving a manufacured cunniving reason is a disgusting scheme when it involves the destruction of many lives.
Tell the soldiers you're sending them to spread democracy Imperialism style because the public and political process is 100% behind such an effort.....
If a President/admin is lying his/herway into a war - with 'spread of democracy' as a hopeful by-product of an idealistic Crusade that numbskull is a total fraud.... he tricked people into giving their lives for his neocon crew's scheme.
That's the point.... The sell for war was about 'imminent mushroom clouds' NOT to spread democracy nor to get rid of the big bad wolf.
Claiming WMDs in Iraq is not proof wmds exist -therefore where is the credible threat of imminent mushroom clouds- let alone as proof to go to war-
That's why NOBODY pushed a button to go to war based on 'claims' - neither did Bush push that button - at the prodding of his Crusader chums he twisted the reports deliberately to push for a war for other unveiled reasons.
Remind me its ok to plead with firefighters to run into a flaming building to bring out a baby wrapped in a blanket in a closet when really its a bundled up stash of jewelry,passport,wallet
ie,-important 'stuff'; but not certainly worth anyones ones life for.... in particular lying to them about it.
What other options did Japan, Germany, Russia have but to yield to democracy- Japan and Germany were gutted as nations at wars end - would the Allies have allowed anything but a democracy to be set-up in these former warlike-military tradition nations??? These beaten down nations had no economy or capability to exist without staring at oblivion unless they got with the democracy program and did like the Romans when in Rome/world community rebuilding after global war.
Russia was breaking apart at the seams for financial reasons -they had to accept democracy or else come to ruin themselves -furthermore their citizens throughout the Soviet block CHOSE democracy themselves... no armies marched into their nations/states and told them to 'choose it'.
"Support the troops" / "You have no patriotism if you don't like our neocon ideals" were the battlecries from this Prez -amongst others.... all were shallow blasts of hot air -> Soldiers definitely want to see people around the world enjoy democracy rather than suffering under extremist regimes; but these soldiers are doing 3 or 4 tours /suicide rates at record highs / proposed G.I Bill to help vets out stalled by McCain. What's the Iraqi army of 350,000+ doing now -and with the $2 billion its getting from the admin.
The difference between Clarke and McClellan and their book's being published;
NONE -I'm not sure why there's a tendency to focus on what a book was written for when these books contents are what packs the punch in revealing truths that cannot be disputed. Who's calling McClellan a liar?!! nope- if they [the 'club' at the Whitehouse] can't do that they'll just stomp their feet with only bloated indignation about the tattle-taler.
-both books reveal the whole crud of the neocon machine at its nasty work from the inside- with bottom line facts about this admin's reckless playbook all laid out for all eternity to mull through with astonished repulsion.
"Russia was breaking apart at the seams for financial reasons -they had to accept democracy or else come to ruin themselves -furthermore their citizens throughout the Soviet block CHOSE democracy themselves... no armies marched into their nations/states and told them to 'choose it'."
That's simply the opposite side of the coin, did you hear of the cold war?
How many nations didn't fall to communism because the US militarywas ready an prepared to stand in their way.
Speaking of Russia brings up another interesting point.
Some people wanting to portray Bush as some traitor for leaking classified materials.
Do they view JFK in the same light.
Before consulting any intelligence community, JFK allowed the release of all know intel about the missile bases in Cuba, live before the whole UN.
I don't see any historical reference to JFK being a leaker.
Concerning WMD's, I wonder how many people realize Castro asked Khrushchev for the ability to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the USA.
Yet only 40 years latter, Micheal Moore wanted Castro to be his guest at the Oscars so he could deliver his acceptance speech.
Funny how much 40 years changes things.
I can't possible make this any simpler.
I would say 90% of the public opinion concerning Bush and Iraq are based on unsubstantiated accusations and more spin then I've seen, maybe in my lifetime.
While his opponents make every charge from.....
Lying
Misleading
Warmonger
War profiteer
I have yet to see anyone make an honest case for any of them.
What I see is a HUGE mistake based mostly on "Faulty Intelligence"
If there was any verifiable proof to support all the rampant accusations, you would have seen impeachment proceedings in congress long before now.
Congress may or may not have gotten enough votes for conviction but I honestly believe we would have seen him tried by now.
Now the likely reply will be
"Bush should have been super duper sure of the intelligence before going to war."
My only reply would be
Duh...
In a perfect world that would have been the case.
Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world.
The decision to invade Iraq was Based on the available intel at the time.
Intelligence which was doubtful to be improved or changed much prior to an invasion which put boots on the ground.
Keep in mind, the U.N. in 12 years and 17 U.N. resolutions had failed to make progress or ensure Iraq fully complied.
Prior to 9-11, America was satisfied with a policy of confinement when it came to Saddam and Iraq.
After 9-11, I think it would have been short sighted and foolish to continue a policy based only on confinement.
I asked this same question almost 4 years ago in another topic about Iraq
"Depending on who's estimate you use, Iraq has either the 2nd or 3rd largest oil reserve in the world, which could easy supply Saddam with tens of billions of dollars per year to do with what he wants. Do you really think it's in yours, mine or the worlds overall best interest to have an aggressive risk-taking dictator who has attacked four countries, has a long history of actively pursuing chemical an biological weapons. Weapons which he even used against his own people. Has professed a desire to harm the United States and its allies with near limitless funds in charge of a country? Maybe it's just me but I don't think so."
Regardless of all the unfounded accusation and conspiracy theorist about why we went to Iraq.
To me it was the right decision based on the information available at the time.
Sure we NOW know it was the wrong thing to do, so it's really to bad none of these Monday morning quarterbacks can jump in their time machine to let Bush and the rest of America know Iraq didn't have any WMD's., nor did it pose a threat to America.
Wow, it really is true, hindsight is 20/20
That's simply the opposite side of the coin, did you hear of the cold war?
How many nations didn't fall to communism because the US militarywas ready an prepared to stand in their way.
Speaking of Russia brings up another interesting point.
Some people wanting to portray Bush as some traitor for leaking classified materials.
Do they view JFK in the same light.
Before consulting any intelligence community, JFK allowed the release of all know intel about the missile bases in Cuba, live before the whole UN.
I don't see any historical reference to JFK being a leaker.
Concerning WMD's, I wonder how many people realize Castro asked Khrushchev for the ability to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the USA.
Yet only 40 years latter, Micheal Moore wanted Castro to be his guest at the Oscars so he could deliver his acceptance speech.
Funny how much 40 years changes things.
I can't possible make this any simpler.
I would say 90% of the public opinion concerning Bush and Iraq are based on unsubstantiated accusations and more spin then I've seen, maybe in my lifetime.
While his opponents make every charge from.....
Lying
Misleading
Warmonger
War profiteer
I have yet to see anyone make an honest case for any of them.
What I see is a HUGE mistake based mostly on "Faulty Intelligence"
If there was any verifiable proof to support all the rampant accusations, you would have seen impeachment proceedings in congress long before now.
Congress may or may not have gotten enough votes for conviction but I honestly believe we would have seen him tried by now.
Now the likely reply will be
"Bush should have been super duper sure of the intelligence before going to war."
My only reply would be
Duh...
In a perfect world that would have been the case.
Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world.
The decision to invade Iraq was Based on the available intel at the time.
Intelligence which was doubtful to be improved or changed much prior to an invasion which put boots on the ground.
Keep in mind, the U.N. in 12 years and 17 U.N. resolutions had failed to make progress or ensure Iraq fully complied.
Prior to 9-11, America was satisfied with a policy of confinement when it came to Saddam and Iraq.
After 9-11, I think it would have been short sighted and foolish to continue a policy based only on confinement.
I asked this same question almost 4 years ago in another topic about Iraq
"Depending on who's estimate you use, Iraq has either the 2nd or 3rd largest oil reserve in the world, which could easy supply Saddam with tens of billions of dollars per year to do with what he wants. Do you really think it's in yours, mine or the worlds overall best interest to have an aggressive risk-taking dictator who has attacked four countries, has a long history of actively pursuing chemical an biological weapons. Weapons which he even used against his own people. Has professed a desire to harm the United States and its allies with near limitless funds in charge of a country? Maybe it's just me but I don't think so."
Regardless of all the unfounded accusation and conspiracy theorist about why we went to Iraq.
To me it was the right decision based on the information available at the time.
Sure we NOW know it was the wrong thing to do, so it's really to bad none of these Monday morning quarterbacks can jump in their time machine to let Bush and the rest of America know Iraq didn't have any WMD's., nor did it pose a threat to America.
Wow, it really is true, hindsight is 20/20
In reading back thru my post I realize I failed to make my point.
My real point is all this finger pointing, fails to address the problem we now face in Iraq.
So to make my point I'll ask one simply question.
Do you think we should just drop an leave Iraq?
For me that would be a resounding NO.
As it completely ignores our responsibility.
People are willing to debate all day about how wrong we were to invade Iraq
based on......
Would of
Could of
Should of
Well guess what, that fails to address our current problem.
Congress who continues to disingenuously score political points by condemning Iraq an the need to get out while they fail to even discussion any credible way to remove ourself from Iraq.
Congress who continues to disingenuously score political points by bashing the cost of the Iraq war while they continue to approve every spending bill because it allows them to attach their pork spending to it.
I'm the 1st to admit, I have no clue what needs to be done to enable us to withdraw from Iraq in a way that wouldn't lead to full out civil war or even worse an easy target for invasion by one of the neighboring countries.
While I don't know what should happen or will happen in Iraq, I do know it's time to turn the discussion away from the partisan finger pointing and looking for a solution.
My real point is all this finger pointing, fails to address the problem we now face in Iraq.
So to make my point I'll ask one simply question.
Do you think we should just drop an leave Iraq?
For me that would be a resounding NO.
As it completely ignores our responsibility.
People are willing to debate all day about how wrong we were to invade Iraq
based on......
Would of
Could of
Should of
Well guess what, that fails to address our current problem.
Congress who continues to disingenuously score political points by condemning Iraq an the need to get out while they fail to even discussion any credible way to remove ourself from Iraq.
Congress who continues to disingenuously score political points by bashing the cost of the Iraq war while they continue to approve every spending bill because it allows them to attach their pork spending to it.
I'm the 1st to admit, I have no clue what needs to be done to enable us to withdraw from Iraq in a way that wouldn't lead to full out civil war or even worse an easy target for invasion by one of the neighboring countries.
While I don't know what should happen or will happen in Iraq, I do know it's time to turn the discussion away from the partisan finger pointing and looking for a solution.
I think you're mixing apples with oranges.
First, the debate from most of us you have differences about Iraq with revolves around what went INTO the decision process and in analyzing the scheme cooked up by a crooked admin. Finding out/unravelling the scheme is personally what's on my mind. After hearing all these years stupidity based on Iraqis needing to pay for flying planes into the Towers/ we're there so that we don't have fight urban close combat in our neighbourhoods/ we're there to give them freedom/we're there to get rid of a very bad man/we're there to get rid of the phantom terrorist bases in Iraq/we had proof of 'claims' of wmd/ all that junk hiding the true hidden neocon Crusader scheme -the first major step to pacify the mid-East menaces.... but that was not the reason the world was told.
I suppose we'll likely have to leave the debate at the point where you firmly believe the war was initiated solely on intel 'claims' and that I believe the claims were twisted for ulterior motives to launch a war.
So why I debate on this topic is purely analyzing that murky process -so that we watch for baffoons like Shrillary who yet again gave Bush carte blanche to move on Iran BASED on hyped up outdated intel on Iran's nuke capability..... that's why.
However you seek debate in another angle of the Iraq war- you're off topic as far as I'm concerned with the clear view I'm expressing when you assume I wish to ball everything up with the 'what shall we do now/tomorrow in Iraq' debate. I made my view clear on that aspect of the Iraq War.... ONLY after the Iraqi security forces are an efficient war machine will there be a true sense of stability in Iraq. An illusion-> We can liquidate al quaeda there and think seemingly pacified shiite militias are standing down and then disengage leaving a small token force of marines behind, but that's not true security. Iran at that point could then trigger of subversive events to destabilize everything at that point. So that's my view on that - I personally see no other scenarios working out there on a long term basis.... Iraqi Security Forces efficiency will determine Iraq's fate..... OR 100 years of full US Forces presence there.
I do find a few views of Moore very poncey [ie, unable to see the need to move into Afghanistan], and a few of his perpectives I find 'interesting'.
But please my chum, I'll never make excuses for Democrats-Obama or my uncle or whoever if they commit lecherous acts - Churchill wanted to seriously drop poison gas on Germany soon after Hitler commenced the Blitz on England.... do you think I'd sit here and say 'oh well you know he had every right blah blah.....' Some fans of his might do that but no- I would not. Therefore sprinkling legitimate comparisons of what ills that 'famous'/popular Dems have done in the past will only get my agreement with you on those points.
ps.
could of / would of / should of IS really;
could've / would've / should've - it seems this popular grammatical error will one day be 'accepted' like 'I didn't do nothing' .... but I can't let those things slip by me without being a prickly pear .
First, the debate from most of us you have differences about Iraq with revolves around what went INTO the decision process and in analyzing the scheme cooked up by a crooked admin. Finding out/unravelling the scheme is personally what's on my mind. After hearing all these years stupidity based on Iraqis needing to pay for flying planes into the Towers/ we're there so that we don't have fight urban close combat in our neighbourhoods/ we're there to give them freedom/we're there to get rid of a very bad man/we're there to get rid of the phantom terrorist bases in Iraq/we had proof of 'claims' of wmd/ all that junk hiding the true hidden neocon Crusader scheme -the first major step to pacify the mid-East menaces.... but that was not the reason the world was told.
I suppose we'll likely have to leave the debate at the point where you firmly believe the war was initiated solely on intel 'claims' and that I believe the claims were twisted for ulterior motives to launch a war.
So why I debate on this topic is purely analyzing that murky process -so that we watch for baffoons like Shrillary who yet again gave Bush carte blanche to move on Iran BASED on hyped up outdated intel on Iran's nuke capability..... that's why.
However you seek debate in another angle of the Iraq war- you're off topic as far as I'm concerned with the clear view I'm expressing when you assume I wish to ball everything up with the 'what shall we do now/tomorrow in Iraq' debate. I made my view clear on that aspect of the Iraq War.... ONLY after the Iraqi security forces are an efficient war machine will there be a true sense of stability in Iraq. An illusion-> We can liquidate al quaeda there and think seemingly pacified shiite militias are standing down and then disengage leaving a small token force of marines behind, but that's not true security. Iran at that point could then trigger of subversive events to destabilize everything at that point. So that's my view on that - I personally see no other scenarios working out there on a long term basis.... Iraqi Security Forces efficiency will determine Iraq's fate..... OR 100 years of full US Forces presence there.
I do find a few views of Moore very poncey [ie, unable to see the need to move into Afghanistan], and a few of his perpectives I find 'interesting'.
But please my chum, I'll never make excuses for Democrats-Obama or my uncle or whoever if they commit lecherous acts - Churchill wanted to seriously drop poison gas on Germany soon after Hitler commenced the Blitz on England.... do you think I'd sit here and say 'oh well you know he had every right blah blah.....' Some fans of his might do that but no- I would not. Therefore sprinkling legitimate comparisons of what ills that 'famous'/popular Dems have done in the past will only get my agreement with you on those points.
ps.
could of / would of / should of IS really;
could've / would've / should've - it seems this popular grammatical error will one day be 'accepted' like 'I didn't do nothing' .... but I can't let those things slip by me without being a prickly pear
.
LOL
as I was typing
could of / would of / should of
I thought it didn't look/sound right but drew a complete blank on how it should have looked.
Anyhoo...
Back to McClellan an his book.
I downloaded the audiobook version of it last night, just finished listening to it.
For all those who were wanting/expecting a detail accounting of Bush's failures.
Well, the book is going to leave you very disappointed.
Don't get me wrong, there is list of Bush's failures, just nothing new and not what most people would expect it to be.
Now after reading the book I'm genuinely amazed by some of the reviews an editorials by people who "SUPPOSEDLY" read this.
I guess all the people praising this book as some kind of proof or inside look at Bush's propaganda machine must be reading between the lines or more likely, reading what the want to into each line as a way to feed their preconceived opinions.
Overall, not a bad book.
Definitely not the what most people have been lead to believe the book was about or what it even says.
It starts out with a long but not totally boring bio of McClellan himself.
A personal history, then moving into a history of his time with Bush in Texas.
Then it leads into details opinion of how McClellan thinks the "The Political Machine known as Washington" changed Bush in many fundamental ways.
Something the Liberals won't like reading is his opinion how things started down hill due to their poor display during the Florida recounts.
He doesn't come out and say it directly but implies this was partly to blame why Bush wasn't a more effective leader.
Did a great job in Texas because he was willing to reach out to Democrats but after Florida, he changed his ways.
While their has been alot of talk about him bashing Bush for the propaganda campaign about Iraq. I think a lot of people mistakenly try to associate lies, with propaganda, which isn't the case.
He does a fair job ensuring the reader what he means, something which wasn't touched on during
his book interviews.
I really have to wonder if Obermann, who keep calling the book, the Rosetta stone of the Bush war machine would have said that if he had read the book and not just excerpts from it before the show.
McClellan goes as far as to say "Bush never knowing mislead the people"
The propaganda angle comes more from the decision to make WMD's the forefront reason behind Iraq.
BTW for all the critics who claim Bush and Co. knew there wasn't WMD's or made it up as an excuse for their Iraq War Agenda. Well, if that's what you think, you probably won't like the part where McClellan talks about how genuinely surprised Bush and the Administration was when it turned out there where no WMD's.
So if your holding McClellan up as some honest, well meaning, whistle blower.
Does your opinion of his honesty suddenly drop because he says the opposite of what you expected?
As much as the media tried to sale this an anti bush book, it's more to do with McClellan's personal
opinion of failed Washington politics in general. from his point of view as press secretary.
How Washington is a disaster because politics is more important then making good policy.
( Something I agree with him on )
The final chapters have little to do with Bush, they focus on changes he would like to see take place in Washington.
The only strong attack piece out of the book deals with the Plame affair.
Even on that subject he doesn't offer anything new, but it is a detailed criticism of Libby, also Rove to a lesser extent.
Overall I would give it 2 and a half, maybe 3 starts out of 5
If anyone is interest, another book about Washington, Politic and Presidents is
Second Acts.
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/15922...nDateDescending
4.5/5 stars.
A very good read.
It brings these people back down to earth in a very entertaining way.
Everyone from Truman through Clinton.
as I was typing
could of / would of / should of
I thought it didn't look/sound right but drew a complete blank on how it should have looked.
Anyhoo...
Back to McClellan an his book.
I downloaded the audiobook version of it last night, just finished listening to it.
For all those who were wanting/expecting a detail accounting of Bush's failures.
Well, the book is going to leave you very disappointed.
Don't get me wrong, there is list of Bush's failures, just nothing new and not what most people would expect it to be.
Now after reading the book I'm genuinely amazed by some of the reviews an editorials by people who "SUPPOSEDLY" read this.
I guess all the people praising this book as some kind of proof or inside look at Bush's propaganda machine must be reading between the lines or more likely, reading what the want to into each line as a way to feed their preconceived opinions.
Overall, not a bad book.
Definitely not the what most people have been lead to believe the book was about or what it even says.
It starts out with a long but not totally boring bio of McClellan himself.
A personal history, then moving into a history of his time with Bush in Texas.
Then it leads into details opinion of how McClellan thinks the "The Political Machine known as Washington" changed Bush in many fundamental ways.
Something the Liberals won't like reading is his opinion how things started down hill due to their poor display during the Florida recounts.
He doesn't come out and say it directly but implies this was partly to blame why Bush wasn't a more effective leader.
Did a great job in Texas because he was willing to reach out to Democrats but after Florida, he changed his ways.
While their has been alot of talk about him bashing Bush for the propaganda campaign about Iraq. I think a lot of people mistakenly try to associate lies, with propaganda, which isn't the case.
He does a fair job ensuring the reader what he means, something which wasn't touched on during
his book interviews.
I really have to wonder if Obermann, who keep calling the book, the Rosetta stone of the Bush war machine would have said that if he had read the book and not just excerpts from it before the show.
McClellan goes as far as to say "Bush never knowing mislead the people"
The propaganda angle comes more from the decision to make WMD's the forefront reason behind Iraq.
BTW for all the critics who claim Bush and Co. knew there wasn't WMD's or made it up as an excuse for their Iraq War Agenda. Well, if that's what you think, you probably won't like the part where McClellan talks about how genuinely surprised Bush and the Administration was when it turned out there where no WMD's.
So if your holding McClellan up as some honest, well meaning, whistle blower.
Does your opinion of his honesty suddenly drop because he says the opposite of what you expected?
As much as the media tried to sale this an anti bush book, it's more to do with McClellan's personal
opinion of failed Washington politics in general. from his point of view as press secretary.
How Washington is a disaster because politics is more important then making good policy.
( Something I agree with him on )
The final chapters have little to do with Bush, they focus on changes he would like to see take place in Washington.
The only strong attack piece out of the book deals with the Plame affair.
Even on that subject he doesn't offer anything new, but it is a detailed criticism of Libby, also Rove to a lesser extent.
Overall I would give it 2 and a half, maybe 3 starts out of 5
If anyone is interest, another book about Washington, Politic and Presidents is
Second Acts.
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/15922...nDateDescending
4.5/5 stars.
A very good read.
It brings these people back down to earth in a very entertaining way.
Everyone from Truman through Clinton.
QUOTE(Robert @ 06/01/08 11:14pm)
LOL
as I was typing
could of / would of / should of
I thought it didn't look/sound right but drew a complete blank on how it should have looked.
,,,,.
as I was typing
could of / would of / should of
I thought it didn't look/sound right but drew a complete blank on how it should have looked.
,,,,.
Thanks mucho for the review
.... well written; I'm wondering if you have a 'writing' profession in real life.I didn't expect anything new from the book as you've pointed out. Just confirmations of mostly what I assumed and assessed already.
I say 'honest' because he spoke from the heart - he didn't try to cover his bases by making excuses for the admin. He points out the real crooks who schemed up all the messes. Although he's being labelled as a Benedict Arnold, all of his foes have nothing to say about him being a schemer nor malicious before he wrote the book -if he'd wrote a book bashing the dems how many repubs would say he wrote the book purely to cash-in?
Would of/could of thing - you should see my horrid-unedited posts before I make 20 edits to each one before the final version!
Anyway I always like to[ or feel compelled] make a big thing out of that 'could of/could have error' everywhere I see it since its becoming a 'popular' accepted way of saying it.
QUOTE(Robert @ 06/01/08 11:14pm)
McClellan goes as far as to say "Bush never knowing mislead the people"
I've held back from the discussion as my copy of the book isn't arriving until today. I commend you on shifting the discussion to what he actually wrote in the book. We are certainly aligned if the discussion is largely about how the infusion of politics in the Bush administration had warped policy.
However, you are glossing over a bit of the central controversy and I'm puzzled as to why you would do this. McClellan, as you quoted him in the book as saying that Bush never knowingly mislead the people," has been completely reversed by his statements. Check this video out:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/mcclella...sled/2606731594
You may notice that the title of the video was "I was misled."
For clarification, Bush lied to his press secretary. This means he was feeding his press secretary lies to present to the American people.
Here is the core part of my confusion. If opinion polls are to be considered, the country largely forgave Clinton for having lied to the American people about getting hummers under the oval office desk. The far right never forgave him and felt this was clearly an impeachable offense.
Now comes W and these very same people want to gloss over the issue of blatant lying, only this time it wasn't a couple of hummers (oh, and a cigar or two), but these lies actually cost America its treasure.
And that leads me to my next question. I was flipping channels yesterday and bumped into an interesting interview with my favorite Texan, Bill Moyers as he questioned Phil Donohue about the making of his new movie, "Body of War." Anyone here had a chance to see it or see the movie?
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03212008/watch.html
It drives home the point that allowing a President to lie has major, major consequences, whether it is a hummer or over up-armoring Humvees. This is a time that, as a country, we insist our leaders bring honesty and integrity to the job.
QUOTE(HammaTime @ 06/02/08 8:28am)
QUOTE(Robert @ 06/01/08 11:14pm)
McClellan goes as far as to say "Bush never knowing mislead the people"
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/mcclella...sled/2606731594
You may notice that the title of the video was "I was misled."
For clarification, Bush lied to his press secretary. This means he was feeding his press secretary lies to present to the American people.
....
Wow, thanks for that clip Hamma,
It also reminded me of Bush's phase several years ago in which he was saying/harping on to the public from his podium -in so many words- 'God guided him to go to war with Iraq'. I'm surprised he never came up with a line like his dog Barney was a medium through which some mystical mighty spirit spoke to him and said to keep going strong with the riteous war in Iraq.
He misled everyone so much in so many ways I think he forgot how he was misleading himself into really believing there was no harm/no foul in his blundering.
When I said McClellan wrote in his opinion Bush never knowingly mislead America, I was specifically referring to Iraq, which is what I think most people consider as defining Bush.
The "I was mislead" comes from the Plame affair which actually isn't something I could or would argue with except for the fact in his interview with Olberman
McClellan also said about the Plame affair
"The president has the legal authority to declassify the NIE report"
Which inadvertently latter lead the to leaking of Plame's identity
More importantly, McClellan also said
"I do not believe the president was in any way involved with the leaking of her identity"
Which I think changes the whole issue in a very different light when it comes to the NIE and Plame.
Now that you've read the book I have two questions for you.
1) After reading the book would you agree with me that media incorrectly portrayed this book as an anti-bush book when it's main point was actually the overall failed politic system in Washington.
2) This one is going to be much less discernible.
Could you pick up on a different witting style from the Bush part's of the book and the rest.
I'm not trying to imply different people wrote the Bush and the Non-bush parts of the book.
I'm sure the basis for the whole book comes directly from McClellan, possibly penned by a ghost writer which would be fairly normal considering he's not a writer by nature or profession.
To give you an idea what I mean. The writing just seemed better when Bush was the focus/subject.
To me it came across as more witty and flowed better.
Not trying to imply it was wrong or anything else.
Simply, maybe the editor focused most of their effort in cleaning up and improving the Bush related areas of the book.
Done probably knowing the Bush parts is what would decide how well the book sold.
Not saying that's the case, just the impression I had an was wondering if you noticed.
Something you may not have noticed while reading but maybe get a sense of it after looking back.
What do you think, am I nuts?
As for the why McClellan wrote it when he did and why.
I doubt both side will agree on that.
My Opinion was summed up very well by my former senator Mr Dole who said today.
"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique. In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you. No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years. If all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job. That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You're a hot ticket now, but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"
The "I was mislead" comes from the Plame affair which actually isn't something I could or would argue with except for the fact in his interview with Olberman
McClellan also said about the Plame affair
"The president has the legal authority to declassify the NIE report"
Which inadvertently latter lead the to leaking of Plame's identity
More importantly, McClellan also said
"I do not believe the president was in any way involved with the leaking of her identity"
Which I think changes the whole issue in a very different light when it comes to the NIE and Plame.
Now that you've read the book I have two questions for you.
1) After reading the book would you agree with me that media incorrectly portrayed this book as an anti-bush book when it's main point was actually the overall failed politic system in Washington.
2) This one is going to be much less discernible.
Could you pick up on a different witting style from the Bush part's of the book and the rest.
I'm not trying to imply different people wrote the Bush and the Non-bush parts of the book.
I'm sure the basis for the whole book comes directly from McClellan, possibly penned by a ghost writer which would be fairly normal considering he's not a writer by nature or profession.
To give you an idea what I mean. The writing just seemed better when Bush was the focus/subject.
To me it came across as more witty and flowed better.
Not trying to imply it was wrong or anything else.
Simply, maybe the editor focused most of their effort in cleaning up and improving the Bush related areas of the book.
Done probably knowing the Bush parts is what would decide how well the book sold.
Not saying that's the case, just the impression I had an was wondering if you noticed.
Something you may not have noticed while reading but maybe get a sense of it after looking back.
What do you think, am I nuts?
As for the why McClellan wrote it when he did and why.
I doubt both side will agree on that.
My Opinion was summed up very well by my former senator Mr Dole who said today.
"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique. In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you. No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years. If all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job. That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You're a hot ticket now, but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"
QUOTE(Robert @ 06/03/08 11:37pm)
...........
My Opinion was summed up very well by my former senator Mr Dole who said today.
".......You're a hot ticket now, but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"
My Opinion was summed up very well by my former senator Mr Dole who said today.
".......You're a hot ticket now, but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"
Actually I've been watching McClellan in a few interviews lately. I think the 'toal ingrate' remark is a spiteful outlashing term with no basis.
Clearly McClellan is NOT intending to assasinate Bush. He shows no motivation to do so. His demeanour is always very humble and forthright and he says 'he doesn't know' when he doesn't - he stands on what he believes and asserts nothing outlandish, nor misleading to play up selling his book.
He portrays Bush as a flawed character - and indeed, reading about Bush's life in general he does have a tragic flaw pervading his life - he goes along by instinct rather than sage wisdom. It might be good for playing poker, but for playing with the destinies of other people through instinct based policies/job appointments -not good.
McClellan is not looking at himself as a 'hot ticket' neither. It seems to me he's out to squash the true leeches in the Bush admin- the architects of soul-less schemes; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Libby, Rice..... clearly he wants to make it known for history to see -from his time on the 'inside'- what was really going on and that there were two sides raging against each other in the admin- those that sincerely meant well and were loyal and wanted to believe the policies issued were best for America , and those that were cunniving misfits who lied WITH a smile to the public about their true intentions and would say 'So?!' when asked why they were messing things up for the public they were supposed to serve with the public's interests as priority.
McClellan if anything sees Bush had his tragic flaw manipulated by the neocons who succeeded in vaulting Bush to believe he was the Grand PooBar of saving the world once and for all....
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.