Bush misled U.S. on Iraq, former aide says in new book Scott McClellan's 'What Happened' delivers tough criticism of president, advisers http://www.ajc.com/meetro/content/news/stories/2008/05/27/mcclellanbook_0527.html Another White House Staffer coming out against the Iraq War and the lies that led to it. Normally, I wouldn't have posted stuff like this, since the forum neocons for the most part have been silenced and retreated to their ratholes in shame and irrelevance. But I read a post by Will.Spencer recently, that reminded me that some people still believe that the cost in American blood & treasure, as well as the loss of global credibility, increased threats to our security and skyrocketing fuel prices are somehow justified by continuing the Clintonian policies of genocide, nation building and regime change. I've heard the term "moonbat" bandied about. But who is truly a moonbat? Someone who wants peace, diplomacy and trade like Ron Paul? Or someone like Will.Spencer, and the partially muted neocons who believe that killing Iraqis, blowing up their country and setting up a terrorist government is doing those people a great humanitarian service? Really, what is crazier? Peace or War? The only principles that Obama, Clinton or McCain stand for, is profiting off the blood of the American armed forces, and million of Iraqi citizens. War profiteering is war profiteering. Blood money. And McCain (as well as his cohort Lieberman) are drenched to their elbows in it. History will not favor the people who promoted lies, murder and destruction. Not the politicians. And not the internet jack boot neocons with their fascist, nationalist agendas.
i thought the guy that said people at WH were laughing at the stupidity of the christians or something like that line was the best. but this seems to be in the line of what a lot of people think already
I'll look forward to reading this. From early press releases it sounds similar to the book written about Paul O'Neill's time at the treasury department by Susskind, The Price of Loyalty. Susskind's book used both documents from O'Neill's period as the head of Treasury and interviews to describe the Bush administration and the President himself. In the above referenced book a portrait of the President was painted as a leader who neither delved into isssues from an intellectual and inquisitive basis and lacked judgement. Further the book described a decision making process that seemed to rest solely on politics. The first descriptions of the McClellan book include passages that are similar. Both individuals had unusually close access to the President, O'Neill being the older outsider with a long strong list of credentials in private corporate and government life brought in by Cheney, and McClellan who was an initial Bush employee who joined the then Governor in 1999 and moved from Texas to the White House. One was an outsider brought in for stature and weight, the other an insider who joined with Bush loyalists from Texas. One old, one young. Its interesting that the have a certain similarity in approach. On the other hand the early descriptions of this book and the actual commentary from the Suskind book with regard to how and why the Iraq war was started approach the issue from different points. Although it appears that both reference that the underlying reasons were not the reasons publicized to the American public. Its too bad your reference to the book, Guerilla, is spiced with hatred and full of vitriol toward someone at DP. When one engages in the type of vitriol your comments above portray, one should expect to receive the same kind of comments. In fact in referencing this book you made dramatically more comments expressing your vitriol and anger than anything illuminating about the book itself and further veered off the book by referencing Clinton policies. Somehow your introduction about this book speaks more of your own perspectives than it does about the book itself.
It's too bad you haven't displayed the intestinal or character fortitude to call violence, murder and genocide what it is. It says a lot more about you, than my comments say about the OP. Can't have anyone speaking badly about the Clintons now. You're ok with attacking Bush, but not with criticizing Clinton, and the numerous crimes he committed. I'll never understand that. I mean, I know the left is just as unprincipled as the right, but you're an intelligent man. How you can continue to ignore historical fact, like the Clintonian policy of regime change, of the 500,000 dead children from Food for Oil, which was a Clinton policy, or the bombing of Serbian School and Hospitals, which was also Clinton policy.... It boggles my mind. But then, the last year has really been a lesson in understanding how irrational people are. And somehow, your post on my post, speaks more about the double standard you perpetuate between the Democrats and Republicans. Bush isn't more evil than Slick Willy Clinton, he's just much less charming and a terrible speaker.
i think we should have paid attention when he said its hard work and realized maybe he can not do it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi8zyp1je9Y&NR=1
Give mia and those guys more time...the White House will launch an all-out attack on him and then this thread will pick up some steam. I'll check back after "prime time".
How about the pay he got while working for the white house? I guess he was only doing it for the money then as well. We can not believe the words of anyone in the white house for that matter as they are being paid!
See that's so weak-GOD DAMNIT! At least show some effort! Turn on Fox News or go to your preferred "news" website and then come back and post the McClellan attacks and criticisms here.
Buying time, Mia? ....I guess the heavy hitters have yet to weigh in on this issue. Well, I'm a patient guy....I can wait, Jeremy (et al.)
Buying time for what? Have you guys run out of things to bitch about? At this point, does anything anyone says really matter anymore? Bush is gone in a few months... Must be a slow news day. Hell, CNN has run out of things to bitch about so much so that they had to dig up a shower death in Iraq since there are rarely any insurgent related deaths anymore.... Yep, seems it is a slow news day.
Weak? I find it funny that these guys get paid, you believe everything they say, they come out of office and if it's pro the administration and they get paid or not, you believe it all. As soon as they are getting paid however and it's against the administration they are discredited just because they are getting paid. These same people that those who are pro the administration have stuck up for time and time again, but as soon as it's not on their agenda they turn on them, with no facts but 'oh ghee they are getting paid' Talk about weak..
I love how the quotes I am seeing are not disputing what was said as not being facts, just simply 'disgruntled, moral qualms, or as in here 'he's getting paid' hmmmm