"Lying is forbidden in Iraq. President Saddam Hussein will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity. Everyone is encouraged to speak freely of the truths evidenced in their eyes and hearts."
Ron Paul questions Iraqi Lawmakers @ Congressional hearings. Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJPFNs59e8 Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXelUuw4nWk The one parliament member from Iraq thinks that as many as 70% of Iraqis want a withdrawal, and in the spirit of reciprocity Iraq should be allowed to have a 3,000 person embassy in Washington. Also says the embassy is an issue (largest in the world, bigger than the Vatican), but the military bases are a bigger issue.
CNNs Yellin: I Was Pressured To Keep Things Positive on Bush she explains how does any one remember where she worked at the time. i am speechless
Brother, you're just waking up. Check out Green Greenwald's blog on Salon.com. He's been covering and developing these stories for quite some time now.
Having read the McClellan book, and having read the book about O'Neil's period in the administration they both paint interesting and somewhat diverse views on activities within the Bush administration. In those regards they are worthwhile reading, if only because both point to differences between the impression that the administration put forth and the realities that two people in two different but important positions within the White House saw firsthand and close up. McClellan's book is a warning of the intense politicization of the White House and how this particular White House emphasized what it describes as the endless and total politicization and campaigning in presenting policies long after the political campaigns were ended. In all fairness McClellan points out that the Clinton White House did the same thing. It appears though that the Bush administration brought to a heightened level. Additionally, from my own insights, the Clinton administration did it while moving its politics to the middle. The Bush administration did it and veered its politics to the Right, always working to satisfy different elements of its coalition of supporters; the Neo-Cons, the Religious Right, and the Tax cutting right. One thing that hasn't been publicized in press reports is how McClellan supports the following thesis about reasons for going into Iraq. McClellan reiterates throughout the book that Bush strongly believed in spreading Democracy and specifically wanting to spread it in the Middle East. These concerns dovetailed with the Neo Con elements in the administration supported by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz, etc. that definitely wanted to take on Iraq from the very beginning. My reading of all this is that Bush simply and quickly bought into the Neo-Con perspective at the very beginning of the administration as it co-incided with his perspective. One very interesting insight in the book involves the change in Bush from governor of Texas to President of the US. McClellan joined the Bush team at the tail end of his governorship and during the time he was either contemplating or preparing to run (but hadn't announced) for the Presidency. The position of governor of Texas is dramatically weak compared to most governors of states. When Texas was established as a state its state constitution spread decisions that normally rest in governors among a variety of state officials. During Bush's period of governor he made a significant effort to be bi-partisan and established strong relations with Democrats in the State Legislature and Democrats in some of the other executive positions that handled some of the powers normally reserved for governors. As President though, Bush took an entirely different tact that primarily focused on marginalizing Democrats in Congress. He had a Republican majority in Congress and essentially worked to sell his ideas directly to the public and bypass Congress. Instead of governing from a bipartisan perspective he governed from an ultra partisan perspective. The overriding concern of the book followed the issue that primarily was described as the Valerie Plame case. As McClellan describes, though, it was primarily a situation that revolved around the primary issue and case the administration made about the reasons for going to war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, the subsequent revelations that the core of the reasons were not substantiated by intelligence, the effort of the Administration to discredit these revelations, and the ultimate court case that resulted in Scooter Libby's being found guilty of perjury and other issues. I'm mostly commenting on this as history.