Scott McClellan:: Bush misled U.S. on Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by guerilla, May 28, 2008.

  1. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #41
    Oh really? And when do you see Iraq independent of America?
     
    guerilla, May 29, 2008 IP
  2. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #42
    There will always be an American presence in an independent Iraq.
     
    Mia, May 29, 2008 IP
  3. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #43
    Oh, I C. You mean like how we allowed a British or French presence in America after the Revolution. :rolleyes:
     
    guerilla, May 29, 2008 IP
  4. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #44
    Ah, we did...
     
    Mia, May 29, 2008 IP
  5. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #45
    what you don't have French and British soldiers in your area? :eek:
     
    GRIM, May 29, 2008 IP
  6. Bernard

    Bernard Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,608
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #46
    Dem congressman calls on McClellan to testify about book's revelations
     
    Bernard, May 29, 2008 IP
  7. pizzaman

    pizzaman Active Member

    Messages:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #47
    having troops in other countries is an old way of doing things and it gurantees nothiong. look what happened in iran. we had military advisors and trainers all over the place.
    we need a fresh aproach a change from failed policies of past. a better way of dealing with other people
     
    pizzaman, May 29, 2008 IP
  8. pizzaman

    pizzaman Active Member

    Messages:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #48
    pizzaman, May 29, 2008 IP
  9. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #49
    They are in my tree fort, planning a night attack on the Spanish.

    [​IMG]
     
    guerilla, May 29, 2008 IP
  10. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #50
    It's wimps like McClellan who enabled the war and shredding of the constitution. I won't be buying it. He pisses me off big time. It's way too little too late.

    At least O'Neill spoke up sooner.

     
    kaethy, May 29, 2008 IP
  11. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #51
    True, but what does a press secretary have power wise to stop things? He also claims back then he believed in what was going on did he not?

    90% or more of America was so afraid from 9/11 they were willing to do whatever the president suggested/wanted. If you went against the president you were a 'terrorist supporter' the same lame argument a few still try to this day.
     
    GRIM, May 29, 2008 IP
  12. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #52
    I look at it this way. Someone raised a point with me today that I think a great many of us have taken for granted. Like or dislike, wrong, or right.. The policies of the Bush admin have been responsible for preventing a single terrorist attack on US soil, both here and abroad on the US since 9/11.

    The same cannot be said of Clinton, the previous Bush, Reagan, or Carter.

    Those of us that remember things like Beruit, hostages in Iran, Quadfi, the Cole Bombing, WTC the first time around, among other things can really appreciate that significance of a policy of proactive defense.

    It's nice to play optimist and say things could be better, but you need to realize that things could also be worse.
     
    Mia, May 29, 2008 IP
  13. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #53
    They haven't had to hit us at home 'nor did they hit us often at home before' we've given them nice juicy targets in Iraq ' a country that had nothing to do with 9/11' In reality they have hit us more often by far under Bush ;)

    BTW the biggest attack at home also happened under Bush, yet those who still support Bush will try to twist that into a victory. Wow, I mean seriously, WOW
     
    GRIM, May 29, 2008 IP
  14. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #54
    He could have spoken out. He could have stood up for what's right. Yes, I blame him, and everyone else around Bush. So he was just following orders???
     
    kaethy, May 29, 2008 IP
  15. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #55
    Yes but again back then 'from what I read' he was caught up in the lies himself, as was most of the US.

    I am not sticking up for the guy one bit, I am outraged by everyone in the administration for the most part, I however am looking at it rationally.

    The press secretary doesn't have any real power, he is nothing more than a puppet sent out by his master. The puppet at the time appeared to of believed in what was being done, I have not read the book though so I of course could be wrong.
     
    GRIM, May 29, 2008 IP
  16. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #56
    I believe one of the characteristics of the current administration has been to place loyalty to the administration over other qualities.

    Loyalty is great. Its application to the extreme can have negative consequences. It has been seen and reported that those in government who disagree or act at odds with the administration get the axe quickly.

    General Shinseki disagreed with the administrations actions with regard to necessary volume of troops for the war in Iraq at the earliest stages of the war. He did it in public testimony before Congress....and Congress has responsibility with the administration for governing the nation and critical decisions.

    He was immediately shunted off from a position of importance and marginalized by the administration. More recently, a senior in the field EPA administrator, who supplied expertise to President Bush on environmental issues was discharged because she worked to enforce existing environmental regulations against Dow Chemical.

    Just before the administration issued its patented "she resigned because of family matters" documents....she contacted the press and told them she was fired for carrying out her job.

    Better late than never, McClellan's book will give us insights into the workings of the Bush administration. It may serve as a primer for future decision
    makers.

    If he had qualms about what went on when he was in the administration, it is helpful that he is revealing them now.
     
    earlpearl, May 29, 2008 IP
  17. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #57
    What I can't figure out is, does anybody really take that job(for ANY president) believing that they won't be lying at some point?

    [ot]
    Could you imagine if Dana Perino was Slick Willy's press secretary? How many late night emergency briefings would there have been?
    [/ot]
     
    LogicFlux, May 29, 2008 IP
  18. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #58
    Good point ;)

    All they are is information/disinformation speakers for the administration. They state what the Admin wants them to say, of course they are going to be lying at times.
     
    GRIM, May 29, 2008 IP
  19. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #59
    Correlation does not imply causation. Bush 41, Reagan, Clinton and Carter also did not spend $500 billion on an unwinnable war, occupy another country, or lose 4,000 men in combat, with 30,000 wounded.

    Your methodology is based on a logical fallacy. Your metrics for success are terribly misguided. By your rationale, if Bush hemorrhages American blood and treasure on the sands of Iraq, it's an acceptable trade off for security at home. :rolleyes:

    Yeah, but an argument can be made that such "proactive defense" which is basically a bullsh1t way of saying "offense" contributed to those situations. Aggressive war is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. When Hitler invaded Poland, it's not much different than when Bush invaded Iraq.

    And the Germans were arrogant and tunnel visioned like you are. They thought they were doing the moral thing, that they were pursuing a righteous path.

    The success and growth of man as a species, as a spiritual, emotional, civil philosophical being, has never been based on the premise of,

    "Gee, it could be a lot worse. Keep murdering innocents and destroying resources."

    Man, with his head up, aspires to be like his Gods, not satisfied that he can be distinguished from his devils.
     
    guerilla, May 29, 2008 IP
  20. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #60
    The burden of my guilt before the law
    weighs light upon my shoulders; to plot
    and to conspire was my duty to the people;
    I would have been a criminal had I not.

    I am guilty, though not the way you think,
    I should have done my duty sooner, I was wrong,
    I should have called evil more clearly by its name
    I hesitated to condemn it for far too long.

    I now accuse myself within my heart:
    I have betrayed my conscience far too long
    I have deceived myself and fellow man.

    I knew the course of evil from the start
    My warning was not loud nor clear enough!
    Today I know what I was guilty of…

    by Albrecht Hanshofer
     
    kaethy, May 29, 2008 IP