McLellan: Iraq war unnessecary.

[BigDPlayer]

I know many of you on here are Republicans and supporters of the Bush-Cheney administration. I remember when Clinton was being impeached the vehemence with which many of you attacked his administration and his character. I offer this latest testament for your consideration:

McLellan is publishing a book... you know him, the Press Secretary during the run up to the war. The official mouthpiece of the administration from 2003-2006. Read this quote:

"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

Imagine yourself a parent or spouse of a brave soldier reading these words. Your son or daughter killed or crippled in action in Iraq. And the man who sold you the bill of goods and justified the war in Iraq now says it was 'propoganda' and 'unnecessary'.

And yet, there they still sit in office. . . the men you so staunchly defended. . . . the men of high moral Christian character. . . Untouched by the lies they sold. Yet honorable American after American, from Richard Clarke to McLellan, from grand juries to victims of Hurrican Katrina, have come out and testified to the outright lies and complete falsehoods of this administration. And men and women, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers have died as a result.

Where are your cries of Impeachment now? Where are your righteous claims of moral character flaws now? Where is your moral outrage? What else must you see and read and hear?

[Bach]

Where are your cries of Impeachment now? Where are your righteous claims of moral character flaws now? Where is your moral outrage? What else must you see and read and hear?

I can't speak for the rest of the conservatives on this board, but one thing I know is that I will never vote for George W. Bush again.

[BigDPlayer]

Very funny...

[iceberg]

Very funny...

well i do have to back the man on this one.

[burmafrd]

So what? That is his opinion and he certainly has a right to it but it means nothing.

[Jon88]

I can't speak for the rest of the conservatives on this board, but one thing I know is that I will never vote for George W. Bush again.

I won't either. This thing is a quaqmire with no end in sight.

[burmafrd]

This is really starting to tick me off. Why did it take all these years for him to come out like this? Sounds like he is writing a book and wants to increase sales.
And frankly its disengenious at best for a PR guy to be looking down his nose at SPIN.
Show me any political decision that is not spun.

[SuspectCorner]

Any insider who points an accusatory finger at Karl Rove automatically has cred in my book. Rove is among the slimiest political operatives ever - a human skidmark. It's too bad he isn't the exception among this admin.

[burmafrd]

I have a few words for you suspect.

Carville.

Dean.

[Bach]

I have a few words for you suspect.

Carville.

Dean.

Ain't that the truth. The people that whine about Rove probably lapped up every headbite Carville spewed in the '90's. That man wrote the book on slime.

[BrAinPaiNt]

one or two...do not excuse the other.

And I have been hearing rumors, don't know if they are true, that Rove is working behind the scenes for McCain. If I find out this is true I will refuse to vote for McCain. I guess Indy or no vote will have to happen if I find out Rove is indeed working with McCain.

[superpunk]

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

ADVERTISEMENT

Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.

A few reporters were offered advance copies of the book, with the restriction that their stories not appear until Sunday, the day before the official publication date. Politico declined and purchased “What Happened” at a Washington bookstore.

The eagerly awaited book, while recounting many fond memories of Bush and describing him as “authentic” and “sincere,” is harsher than reporters and White House officials had expected.

McClellan was one of the president’s earliest and most loyal political aides, and most of his friends had expected him to take a few swipes at his former colleague in order to sell books but also to paint a largely affectionate portrait.

Instead, McClellan’s tone is often harsh. He writes, for example, that after Hurricane Katrina, the White House “spent most of the first week in a state of denial,” and he blames Rove for suggesting the photo of the president comfortably observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover. McClellan says he and counselor to the president Dan Bartlett had opposed the idea and thought it had been scrapped.

But he writes that he later was told that “Karl was convinced we needed to do it — and the president agreed.”

“One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term,” he writes. “And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.”

McClellan, who turned 40 in February, was press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. An Austin native from a political family, he began working as a gubernatorial spokesman for then-Gov. Bush in early 1999, was traveling press secretary for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and was chief deputy to Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at the beginning of Bush’s first term.

“I still like and admire President Bush,” McClellan writes. “But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. … In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.”



In a small sign of how thoroughly McClellan has adopted the outsider’s role, he refers at times to his former boss as “Bush,” when he is universally referred to by insiders as “the president.”

McClellan lost some of his friends in the administration last November when his publisher released an excerpt from the book that appeared to accuse Bush of participating in the cover-up of the Plame leak. The book, however, makes clear that McClellan believes Bush was also a victim of misinformation.

The book begins with McClellan’s statement to the press that he had talked with Rove and Libby and that they had assured him they “were not involved in … the leaking of classified information.”

At Libby’s trial, testimony showed the two had talked with reporters about the officer, however elliptically.

“I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood,” McClellan writes. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later.

“Neither, I believe, did President Bush. He, too, had been deceived and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie.”

McClellan also suggests that Libby and Rove secretly colluded to get their stories straight at a time when federal investigators were hot on the Plame case.

“There is only one moment during the leak episode that I am reluctant to discuss,” he writes. “It was in 2005, during a time when attention was focusing on Rove and Libby, and it sticks vividly in my mind. … Following [a meeting in Chief of Staff Andy Card’s office], … Scooter Libby was walking to the entryway as he prepared to depart when Karl turned to get his attention. ‘You have time to visit?’ Karl asked. ‘Yeah,’ replied Libby.

“I have no idea what they discussed, but it seemed suspicious for these two, whom I had never noticed spending any one-on-one time together, to go behind closed doors and visit privately. … At least one of them, Rove, it was publicly known at the time, had at best misled me by not sharing relevant information, and credible rumors were spreading that the other, Libby, had done at least as much. …

“The confidential meeting also occurred at a moment when I was being battered by the press for publicly vouching for the two by claiming they were not involved in leaking Plame’s identity, when recently revealed information was now indicating otherwise. … I don’t know what they discussed, but what would any knowledgeable person reasonably and logically conclude was the topic? Like the whole truth of people’s involvement, we will likely never know with any degree of confidence.”

McClellan repeatedly embraces the rhetoric of Bush's liberal critics and even charges: “If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.

“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”



Decrying the Bush administration’s “excessive embrace of the permanent campaign approach to governance,” McClellan recommends that future presidents appoint a “deputy chief of staff for governing” who “would be responsible for making sure the president is continually and consistently committed to a high level of openness and forthrightness and transcending partisanship to achieve unity.

“I frequently stumbled along the way,” McClellan acknowledges in the book’s preface. “My own story, however, is of small importance in the broad historical picture. More significant is the larger story in which I played a minor role: the story of how the presidency of George W. Bush veered terribly off course.”

Even some of the chapter titles are brutal: “The Permanent Campaign,” “Deniability,” “Triumph and Illusion,” “Revelation and Humiliation” and “Out of Touch.”

“I think the concern about liberal bias helps to explain the tendency of the Bush team to build walls against the media,” McClellan writes in a chapter in which he says he dealt “happily enough” with liberal reporters. “Unfortunately, the press secretary at times found himself outside those walls as well.”

The book’s center has eight slick pages with 19 photos, eight of them depicting McClellan with the president. Those making cameos include Cheney, Rove, Bartlett, Mark Knoller of CBS News, former Assistant Press Secretary Reed Dickens and, aboard Air Force One, former press office official Peter Watkins and former White House stenographer Greg North.

In the acknowledgments, McClellan thanks each member of his former staff by name.

Among other notable passages:

• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes.

• Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’”

• “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”

• “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

• McClellan describes his preparation for briefing reporters during the Plame frenzy: “I could feel the adrenaline flowing as I gave the go-ahead for Josh Deckard, one of my hard-working, underpaid press office staff, … to give the two-minute warning so the networks could prepare to switch to live coverage the moment I stepped into the briefing room.”

• “‘Matrix’ was the code name the Secret Service used for the White House press secretary."

McClellan is on the lecture circuit and remains in the Washington area with his wife, Jill

[AtlCB]

I know many of you on here are Republicans and supporters of the Bush-Cheney administration. I remember when Clinton was being impeached the vehemence with which many of you attacked his administration and his character. I offer this latest testament for your consideration:

McLellan is publishing a book... you know him, the Press Secretary during the run up to the war. The official mouthpiece of the administration from 2003-2006. Read this quote:

"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

Imagine yourself a parent or spouse of a brave soldier reading these words. Your son or daughter killed or crippled in action in Iraq. And the man who sold you the bill of goods and justified the war in Iraq now says it was 'propoganda' and 'unnecessary'.

And yet, there they still sit in office. . . the men you so staunchly defended. . . . the men of high moral Christian character. . . Untouched by the lies they sold. Yet honorable American after American, from Richard Clarke to McLellan, from grand juries to victims of Hurrican Katrina, have come out and testified to the outright lies and complete falsehoods of this administration. And men and women, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers have died as a result.

Where are your cries of Impeachment now? Where are your righteous claims of moral character flaws now? Where is your moral outrage? What else must you see and read and hear?I agree that Bush was a crappy president, but that isn't an impeachable offense. If it was, Jimmy Carter would have been impeached. All that really has been proven is that our president made some really bad choices and mishandled Iraq, Katrina, and government spending. PBS did a really nice piece on Bush, Iraq, and the aftermath of Iraq. They didn't uncover a single impeachable offense on the program. What, exactly, are we supposed to impeach Bush on?

[Bach]

They didn't uncover a single impeachable offense on the program. What, exactly, are we supposed to impeach Bush on?

They just want to just so they can get back at someone for Clinton getting impeached. It's really comical.

[Doomsday101]

I know many of you on here are Republicans and supporters of the Bush-Cheney administration. I remember when Clinton was being impeached the vehemence with which many of you attacked his administration and his character. I offer this latest testament for your consideration:

McLellan is publishing a book... you know him, the Press Secretary during the run up to the war. The official mouthpiece of the administration from 2003-2006. Read this quote:

"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

Imagine yourself a parent or spouse of a brave soldier reading these words. Your son or daughter killed or crippled in action in Iraq. And the man who sold you the bill of goods and justified the war in Iraq now says it was 'propoganda' and 'unnecessary'.

And yet, there they still sit in office. . . the men you so staunchly defended. . . . the men of high moral Christian character. . . Untouched by the lies they sold. Yet honorable American after American, from Richard Clarke to McLellan, from grand juries to victims of Hurrican Katrina, have come out and testified to the outright lies and complete falsehoods of this administration. And men and women, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers have died as a result.

Where are your cries of Impeachment now? Where are your righteous claims of moral character flaws now? Where is your moral outrage? What else must you see and read and hear?

1st off I have not read McClellan book I doubt you have since it will not be on sale until later this week. 2nd If fed prosecutors what to investigate and question McClellan then they should until then hear say evidence is a bit different than facts. Right now you don't have any facts what you have is gossip but then for you liberals you really don't need more than that now do you.

In the case of Clinton he lied to a Grandy Jury that is why he was impeached. Personally I never hollered for him to be impeached but he screwed himself by lying to a Grand Jury over something really stupid.

[BrAinPaiNt]

They just want to just so they can get back at someone for Clinton getting impeached. It's really comical.

People really need to get off the clinton jock. The guy has been out of office for years now.

Bush had done enough to warrant his own embarrassment without having to reach all the way back for Clinton. For every...but Bush this or bush that you have a but clinton this or clinton that.

One does not excuse the other.

[BrAinPaiNt]

1st off I have not read McClellan book I doubt you have since it will not be on sale until later this week. 2nd If fed prosecutors what to investigate and question McClellan then they should until then hear say evidence is a bit different than facts. Right now you don't have any facts what you have is gossip but then for you liberals you really don't need more than that now do you.

In the case of Clinton he lied to a Grandy Jury that is why he was impeached. Personally I never hollered for him to be impeached but he screwed himself by lying to a Grand Jury over something really stupid.

For the record, although the book is not set to be released for a few days...it was actually on sale in some DC area book store. I guess the store put it out early or the publishers did it early in a very limited area.

[Doomsday101]

People really need to get off the clinton jock. The guy has been out of office for years now.

Bush had done enough to warrant his own embarrassment without having to reach all the way back for Clinton. For every...but Bush this or bush that you have a but clinton this or clinton that.

One does not excuse the other.

I actually agree with you on this, it has nothing to do with Clinton. If people want to discuss McClellan book cool however the book has not come out yet and I would think McClellan and those mentioned in the book will be asked question at that point I think we will at least get a somewhat clearer picture.

[Doomsday101]

For the record, although the book is not set to be released for a few days...it was actually on sale in some DC area book store. I guess the store put it out early or the publishers did it early in a very limited area.

I still have doubts that BigDPlayer has read the book. (For the record) :)

[DFWJC]

Just curious, is McClellan a top foreign affairs specialist or leading world military strategist? Oh, that's right, he was the press secretary. Talk about arm-chair quarterbacking (had to get the sports stuff in on the Cowboys site).

I'm not even making a comment one way or the other on the war here, but really...the dude was the press secretary.

[big dog cowboy]

What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary
That part I'll certainly agree with.

[Sasquatch]

Just curious, is McClellan a top foreign affairs specialist or leading world military strategist? Oh, that's right, he was the press secretary. Talk about arm-chair quarterbacking (had to get the sports stuff in on the Cowboys site).

I'm not even making a comment one way or the other on the war here, but really...the dude was the press secretary.

Another critical memoir by a former member of the Bush administration and another excuse.

Silly rabbit, Bush bashing is for libs!

[Sasquatch]

People really need to get off the clinton jock. The guy has been out of office for years now.

While I agree with this, I think Slick Willy is happy to have as many people on his jock as possible.

[AtlCB]

People really need to get off the clinton jock. The guy has been out of office for years now.

Bush had done enough to warrant his own embarrassment without having to reach all the way back for Clinton. For every...but Bush this or bush that you have a but clinton this or clinton that.

One does not excuse the other.Bach does have a point. The Dems are doing this, because the Republicans did it to them. Whichever party is in does not win the presidency will viciously go after the president. It's a horrible cycle that needs to stop. Clinton also should not have had an impeachment trial for perjury. IMO, his punishment should have been limited to being disbarred for this crime. It's amazing how some of the libs were chearing for the member of Bush's team being jailed for perjury while they were excusing the same crime years ago when their guy did the same thing. If the roles were reversed, I'm sure the Republicans would have acted the same way.

[Rackat]

People really need to get off the clinton jock. The guy has been out of office for years now.

Bush had done enough to warrant his own embarrassment without having to reach all the way back for Clinton. For every...but Bush this or bush that you have a but clinton this or clinton that.

One does not excuse the other.

The OP implied Clinton impeachment in the final paragraph of his diatribe. That others picked up on it is not an excuse but an answer to the implied suggestion of Clinton being impeached and the Republicans not crying for Bush's impeachment now.

Where are your cries of Impeachment now? Where are your righteous claims of moral character flaws now? Where is your moral outrage? What else must you see and read and hear?

[Bach]

People really need to get off the clinton jock. The guy has been out of office for years now.

Bush had done enough to warrant his own embarrassment without having to reach all the way back for Clinton. For every...but Bush this or bush that you have a but clinton this or clinton that.

One does not excuse the other.

Just giving the rationale why many on the left want to see Bush get impeached even though he has committed zero impeachable offenses.

[CowGirl82]

Just giving the rationale why many on the left want to see Bush get impeached even though he has committed zero impeachable offenses.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/12/22/impeach/

[DFWJC]

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/12/22/impeach/

If the article is from salon or dailykos, it can safely be eliminated as partisan bias at this point. They left the hiqhway long ago, and in some cases have gotten downright evil. They do have some good writers there, however....just off-the-charts left-bias. Kind of like expecting Limbaugh to give a Dem a fair shake. It ain't gonna happen.

[CowGirl82]

If the article is from salon or dailykos, it can safely be eliminated as partisan bias at this point. They left the hiqhway long ago, and in some cases have gotten downright evil. They do have some good writers there, however....just off-the-charts left-bias. Kind of like expecting Limbaugh to give a Dem a fair shake. It ain't gonna happen.


Wire tapping of American citizens without a warrant, whether or not they are "suspected terrorists", is unconstitutional, and therefore subject to impeachment. But I'm sure you have a different interpretation, that is just mine.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Wire tapping of American citizens without a warrant, whether or not they are "suspected terrorists", is unconstitutional, and therefore subject to impeachment. But I'm sure you have a different interpretation, that is just mine.

You mean when the president takes an oath to defend the constitution of the united states and then turns around and trashes or ignores it at certain times it is grounds for impeachment? :confused: :laugh2:

Now on to something else that I do know for sure.

People that were banned, and come back under another name, sometimes get banned on the spot...kind of like quinnncy and now cowgirl.

[zrinkill]

Wire tapping of American citizens without a warrant, whether or not they are "suspected terrorists", is unconstitutional, and therefore subject to impeachment. But I'm sure you have a different interpretation, that is just mine.

What do banned mean?

[DFWJC]

Wire tapping of American citizens without a warrant, whether or not they are "suspected terrorists", is unconstitutional, and therefore subject to impeachment. But I'm sure you have a different interpretation, that is just mine.

So you feel that Bush ordered certain people specifically to be wiretapped? I do not. I understand the constitutional issues here. But having something occur under your watch (but not by you per se) is one or more steps removed from doing it directly yourself. That is agiant reach to say you would actually impeach a president of the USA over something like that.

I just think you would have to be incredibly driven (almost pathologically, like some Repubs were w/ Clinton) to want impeachment over that. The Daily Kos fits that description vs Bush.

[Bach]

So you feel that Bush ordered certain people specifically to be wiretapped? I do not.

I just think you would have to be incredibly driven (almost pathologically, like some Repubs were w/ Clinton) to want impeachment over that. The Daily Kos fits that description vs Bush.

Unfortunately we won't be getting a response from cowgirl.


:laugh2:

[iceberg]

I agree that Bush was a crappy president, but that isn't an impeachable offense. If it was, Jimmy Carter would have been impeached. All that really has been proven is that our president made some really bad choices and mishandled Iraq, Katrina, and government spending. PBS did a really nice piece on Bush, Iraq, and the aftermath of Iraq. They didn't uncover a single impeachable offense on the program. What, exactly, are we supposed to impeach Bush on?

mishandled iraq? we've got iran surrounded don't we? could we have ever done that w/o topping iraq first?

i think bush had a longer range plan in place and saddam was low hanging fruit. did he lie? yep. but he's never talked about his ability to dodge sniper fire or that his daughter was at ground zero on 9/11. : )

we simply won't know for quite awhile the outcome of iraq. if the next president folds up shop and leaves, bush is crap. if they see it through and it works and we "win" with iran, we'll owe bush quite a bit.

in my mind there's a lot more at play than the "surface noise" we all get lost in.

[gbrittain]

mishandled iraq? we've got iran surrounded don't we? could we have ever done that w/o topping iraq first?

i think bush had a longer range plan in place and saddam was low hanging fruit. did he lie? yep. but he's never talked about his ability to dodge sniper fire or that his daughter was at ground zero on 9/11. : )

we simply won't know for quite awhile the outcome of iraq. if the next president folds up shop and leaves, bush is crap. if they see it through and it works and we "win" with iran, we'll owe bush quite a bit.

in my mind there's a lot more at play than the "surface noise" we all get lost in.

Very good point.

[AtlCB]

mishandled iraq? we've got iran surrounded don't we? could we have ever done that w/o topping iraq first?

i think bush had a longer range plan in place and saddam was low hanging fruit. did he lie? yep. but he's never talked about his ability to dodge sniper fire or that his daughter was at ground zero on 9/11. : )

we simply won't know for quite awhile the outcome of iraq. if the next president folds up shop and leaves, bush is crap. if they see it through and it works and we "win" with iran, we'll owe bush quite a bit.

in my mind there's a lot more at play than the "surface noise" we all get lost in.Iraq reconstruction was handled horribly after the war. The administration made some huge errors.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Iraq reconstruction was handled horribly after the war. The administration made some huge errors.

No No No pesky questioner of things...nothing has gone wrong, it has all gone to plan. There is no wrong within this admin. Hey look at that shiny object over there. ;) :p:

[zrinkill]

No No No pesky questioner of things...nothing has gone wrong, it has all gone to plan. There is no wrong within this admin. Hey look at that shiny object over there. ;) :p:

No No No pesky supporter of things...nothing has gone right, it has all gone wrong. There is no right within this admin. Hey look at that tragedy over there!

:)

[BigDPlayer]

I agree that Bush was a crappy president, but that isn't an impeachable offense. If it was, Jimmy Carter would have been impeached. All that really has been proven is that our president made some really bad choices and mishandled Iraq, Katrina, and government spending. PBS did a really nice piece on Bush, Iraq, and the aftermath of Iraq. They didn't uncover a single impeachable offense on the program. What, exactly, are we supposed to impeach Bush on?

How about ineptitude? How about a vote of no confidence?

[AtlCB]

How about ineptitude? How about a vote of no confidence?You cannot impeach a president for that. If we could, Jimmy Carter should have been impeached.

[BigDPlayer]

TO answer Doomsday101, no I haven't read the book. I know, in your mind that means this is all gossip and that, somehow, discredits any kind of discussion on the extensive exerpts being quoted all over the internet and credited news outlets.

I do applaud you, however, on faithful use of the 'playbook'. I think it is rule Number 1, whenever you are unable to defend a position on its merit you simply attack the messenger and you can avoid all those pesky facts that get in the way of your agenda.

[BigDPlayer]

You cannot impeach a president for that. If we could, Jimmy Carter should have been impeached.

True... good point!

How about lying to the American people to start a war? Valerie Plume anyone? I mean, you can at least impeach Cheney (isn't he the brains behind this administration anyway)?

I don't know. Maybe it's still sour grapes on my part, and I readily admit that. But it seems apparent the vastness of the crimes of Bush-Cheney, and the weight in AMerican lives, so outweighs the silliness of Clinton's indiscresions. We should be standing on the rooftops... conservative and liberal alike.

[vta]

I do applaud you, however, on faithful use of the 'playbook'. I think it is rule Number 1, whenever you are unable to defend a position on its merit you simply attack the messenger and you can avoid all those pesky facts that get in the way of your agenda.

What facts have been presented?
A book was written and it's contents have not been verified. Those are the only facts as it stands right now.

Does it seem likely if the author 'thinks' he was not telling the truth, that he really has any kind of factual evidence regarding the war?

The clown gave himself away with that assertion early on in the game. Too bad Scott.

[Bach]

I don't know. Maybe it's still sour grapes on my part, and I readily admit that. But it seems apparent the vastness of the crimes of Bush-Cheney, and the weight in AMerican lives, so outweighs the silliness of Clinton's indiscresions.

Crimes? Those grapes must be more than just sour, I think they've fermented.

[vta]

"Well, why, all of a sudden, if he 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. Certainly let's look at the politics of it"


---Scott McClellen (http://www. /news/releases/2004/03/20040322-4.html#4)


:rolleyes:

[AtlCB]

True... good point!

How about lying to the American people to start a war? Valerie Plume anyone? I mean, you can at least impeach Cheney (isn't he the brains behind this administration anyway)?

I don't know. Maybe it's still sour grapes on my part, and I readily admit that. But it seems apparent the vastness of the crimes of Bush-Cheney, and the weight in AMerican lives, so outweighs the silliness of Clinton's indiscresions. We should be standing on the rooftops... conservative and liberal alike.As far as lying to start the war, I don't know if you can prove that. Cheney may have believed a lot of it, and when Bush asked Tenet about WMD in Iraq, he said it was a slam dunk. Cheney did start his own intelligence gathering, but he will just say that he did so due to the CIA's incompetence.

On the Valerie Plame incident, she wasn't undercover at the time that the information was released. Her life wasn't in danger. The result of her name being released only prevented her from ever going on an undercover mission. To me, the congressional hearings over this rank with the Clinton Whitewater trials as a big waste of taxpayer money. Valerie Plame should have sued Dick Cheney over the incident. The only outcome of wasting millions of dollars was the sentencing of someone who perjured himself during the hearing. Clinton received a much less severe punishment for perjury. Also, the perjury by Clinton was part of a sexual harrassment civil trial that he was probably guilty of (he did have some awful taste in women). I don't see much difference in what either side did when the opposing party's president was in power. What I find upsetting is that we have to pay for these witchhunts! :mad:

[AtlCB]

"Well, why, all of a sudden, if he 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. Certainly let's look at the politics of it"


---Scott McClellen (http://www. /news/releases/2004/03/20040322-4.html#4)


:rolleyes:The timing of the book is a bit suspect.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The timing of the book is a bit suspect.

Unless he had a gag order in place and a time frame for said gag order was up.

I don't know if that is the case, but it is something to consider.

[Maikeru-sama]

To be honest the people that have been banned in the PZ haven't said anything worst than HeavyHitter and Burmfard.

JMO

[AtlCB]

Unless he had a gag order in place and a time frame for said gag order was up.

I don't know if that is the case, but it is something to consider.
If he was under a gag order, I would think they would make sure that the gag order ended in 2009 instead of right before a presidential election. Although, with this administration, you never know.

This election is already starting to ugly. I bet we'll see a lot of these types of things by both parties.

[BrAinPaiNt]

"Well, why, all of a sudden, if he 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. Certainly let's look at the politics of it"


---Scott McClellen (http://www. /news/releases/2004/03/20040322-4.html#4)


:rolleyes:

Once again...I have to wonder if there was a gag order in place.

[vta]

Once again...I have to wonder if there was a gag order in place.

The timing doesn't bother me as much (the above is just laughable irony) as his lame line about thinking he may have lied unbeknownst to himself.

I think I've made it clear that I am 100% sure this admin lied to go to war, but for this clown to claim he didn't know he was lying, yet claim unequivocally that the admin did is pretty ridiculous.

If he couldn't tell the crap he was being fed was full of lie's, how can he have any knowledge about what is true, regarding the war?

[iceberg]

Iraq reconstruction was handled horribly after the war. The administration made some huge errors.

cool. can't deny that. he did think it would be too easy and that was a huge mistake.

No No No pesky questioner of things...nothing has gone wrong, it has all gone to plan. There is no wrong within this admin. Hey look at that shiny object over there. ;) :p:

can't name ONE person who's ever said EVERYTHING is going perfect.

but i can name quite a few who've said EVERYTHING is wrong.

[ConcordCowboy]

While it's nice to have a Bush insider finally tell the truth...these revelations are really nothing new to anyone with a few neurons firing.

[burmafrd]

Truth in only the eyes of concord and company.

The PR guy is NOT in the meetings where the most sensitive intelligence is discussed. Only the President, Chief of Staff, and National Security Advisor.
And The VP if he is around and his Chief of Staff. No one else lower on the food chain- certainly not the Press Secretary.

[iceberg]

While it's nice to have a Bush insider finally tell the truth...these revelations are really nothing new to anyone with a few neurons firing.

so you're agosh in revelation today?

[hank2k]

[QUOTE=AtlCB;2097168]As far as lying to start the war, I don't know if you can prove that. Cheney may have believed a lot of it, and when Bush asked Tenet about WMD in Iraq, he said it was a slam dunk. Cheney did start his own intelligence gathering, but he will just say that he did so due to the CIA's incompetence.


Wrong.
Bush was briefed by George Tenet about Saddam NOT being an imminent threat and then went on tv and said he was. That, my friend, is a LIE.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19903.htm


In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.
On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

Read more here. The countries greatest prosecutor lays out the case:
http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/video.php

[ConcordCowboy]

Truth in only the eyes of concord and company.

The PR guy is NOT in the meetings where the most sensitive intelligence is discussed. Only the President, Chief of Staff, and National Security Advisor.
And The VP if he is around and his Chief of Staff. No one else lower on the food chain- certainly not the Press Secretary.

Please...save your typing.

You obviously are one of the people who's neurons aren't firing.

[silverbear]

This is really starting to tick me off.

I can understand that, the truth is not kind to your precious Dubya...

[ConcordCowboy]

so you're agosh in revelation today?

I'm today where I've always been.

Thinking Bush is a clown and started a unnecessary War that has cost us three quarter of a trillion dollars and 4000+ lives so far for a country that had no WMD's and no ties to 9/11 and has not made us any safer...all the while taking man power and resources AWAY from the place they should be in...Afghanistan...you know where the people who actually caused 9/11 to happen are.

But you already know where I stand on this.

[hank2k]

[QUOTE=ConcordCowboy;2097776]I'm today where I've always been.

Thinking Bush is a clown and started a unnecessary War that has cost us three quarter of a trillion dollars and 4000+ lives so far for a country that had no WMD's and no ties to 9/11 and has not made us any safer...all the while taking man power and resources AWAY from the place they should be in...Afghanistan...you know where the people who actually caused 9/11 to happen are.



Concord, if you read Vince Bugliosis new book , he makes a pretty compelling case that Bush's incompetence (what 40% of his presidency on vacation ?) is a major reason 9-11 happened in the first place.

Its actually quite sickening...and all true.

[burmafrd]

And you gomers are still at it. Hank, concord, canadian, suspect, etc.
You keep pulling out biased and agenda driven sites and think this proves something? Just proves certain people cannot figure out when they should walk away.
Now you are trying to differentiate between IMMEDIATE threat and potential threat. That is splitting hairs. Saddam was ALWAYS a threat as long as he was in power.

[Doomsday101]

TO answer Doomsday101, no I haven't read the book. I know, in your mind that means this is all gossip and that, somehow, discredits any kind of discussion on the extensive exerpts being quoted all over the internet and credited news outlets.

I do applaud you, however, on faithful use of the 'playbook'. I think it is rule Number 1, whenever you are unable to defend a position on its merit you simply attack the messenger and you can avoid all those pesky facts that get in the way of your agenda.

I'm only responding to your comments about why are the Rep. not hollering for impeachment. Based on what? A book you have not read and 1 mans account? This without him answering any questions of how much he knew or did not know. How much of this is strictly his opinion and how much it facts? I can't say, I have not read the book nor has he been interviewed about his book. So now tell me what are you basing impeachment on other than your own bias? It is not like there have been no congressional hearing on going to war

[zrinkill]

I do applaud you, however, on faithful use of the 'playbook'. I think it is rule Number 1, whenever you are unable to defend a position on its merit you simply attack the messenger and you can avoid all those pesky facts that get in the way of your agenda.

Kind of like playing the Victim card huh ......

[ConcordCowboy]

And you gomers are still at it. Hank, concord, canadian, suspect, etc.
You keep pulling out biased and agenda driven sites and think this proves something? Just proves certain people cannot figure out when they should walk away.
Now you are trying to differentiate between IMMEDIATE threat and potential threat. That is splitting hairs. Saddam was ALWAYS a threat as long as he was in power.

In order for you to see that Iraq was NOT necessary...but Afghanistan was and is would require you to get your head out of Bush's ***.

Therefore that will never happen.

[iceberg]

I'm today where I've always been.

Thinking Bush is a clown and started a unnecessary War that has cost us three quarter of a trillion dollars and 4000+ lives so far for a country that had no WMD's and no ties to 9/11 and has not made us any safer...all the while taking man power and resources AWAY from the place they should be in...Afghanistan...you know where the people who actually caused 9/11 to happen are.

But you already know where I stand on this.

i know where you are. you seem to be one of those who's mind is made up and regardless of whatever may happen from today through the end of time that won't change. it's a "rock" mentality you should be proud of.

and we all know rocks have great neurons.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I'm only responding to your comments about why are the Rep. not hollering for impeachment. Based on what? A book you have not read and 1 mans account? This without him answering any questions of how much he knew or did not know. How much of this is strictly his opinion and how much it facts? I can't say, I have not read the book nor has he been interviewed about his book. So now tell me what are you basing impeachment on other than your own bias? It is not like there have been no congressional hearing on going to war

Do you honestly think it is just about this book. Have you had your eyes sewn shut over the last 4-5 years. Honestly. This guy has been a disaster. Even if you take Iraq completely out of the equation, his foul up of the Hurricane Katrina disaster alone is enough that everybody should question this guy and disapprove of his presidency.

[DFWJC]

[quote=ConcordCowboy;2097776]I'm today where I've always been.

Thinking Bush is a clown and started a unnecessary War that has cost us three quarter of a trillion dollars and 4000+ lives so far for a country that had no WMD's and no ties to 9/11 and has not made us any safer...all the while taking man power and resources AWAY from the place they should be in...Afghanistan...you know where the people who actually caused 9/11 to happen are.



Concord, if you read Vince Bugliosis new book , he makes a pretty compelling case that Bush's incompetence (what 40% of his presidency on vacation ?) is a major reason 9-11 happened in the first place.

Its actually quite sickening...and all true.

Hold it....you mean to tell me you actually think BUSH is now responsible for 9/11? Events that began in the early 90s and culminated on 9/11 are his fault? Now that is off-the-charts moronic. I make no claims for Bush here, but that allegation is preposterous.

[vta]

Do you honestly think it is just about this book. Have you had your eyes sewn shut over the last 4-5 years. Honestly. This guy has been a disaster. Even if you take Iraq completely out of the equation, his foul up of the Hurricane Katrina disaster alone is enough that everybody should question this guy and disapprove of his presidency.

Wee-ell.
I'd think if not for Iraq, domestic issues would certainly have been handled a lot better. Iraq has been priority one for this administration and requires a lot, in terms of attention and effort. Iraq isn't a glistening pile of success, and it has caused for domestic issues to suffer.

[DFWJC]

Wee-ell.
I'd think if not for Iraq, domestic issues would certainly have been handled a lot better. Iraq has been priority one for this administration and requires a lot, in terms of attention and effort. Iraq isn't a glistening pile of success, and it has caused for domestic issues to suffer.

Hard to agrue with that.

[ConcordCowboy]

i know where you are. you seem to be one of those who's mind is made up and regardless of whatever may happen from today through the end of time that won't change. it's a "rock" mentality you should be proud of.

and we all know rocks have great neurons.

http://www.lostdestinations.com/stoneroom/stl017.jpg...me firing away!

[AtlCB]

[QUOTE=AtlCB;2097168]As far as lying to start the war, I don't know if you can prove that. Cheney may have believed a lot of it, and when Bush asked Tenet about WMD in Iraq, he said it was a slam dunk. Cheney did start his own intelligence gathering, but he will just say that he did so due to the CIA's incompetence.


Wrong.
Bush was briefed by George Tenet about Saddam NOT being an imminent threat and then went on tv and said he was. That, my friend, is a LIE.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19903.htm


In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.
On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

Read more here. The countries greatest prosecutor lays out the case:
http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/video.phpTenet told Bush right before the war that is was a slam dunk that there were WMD's in Iraq. That is a fact that Tenet has admitted to. You and Tenet can't have it both ways. Also, exactly how would Tenet know if Iraq was a threat or not when we didn't have a single operative in Iraq. How could the CIA not have one single operative in Iraq??????? - Incompetence.

[zrinkill]

http://www.lostdestinations.com/stoneroom/stl017.jpg...me firing away!

Sorry ...... thats way to big.

(please no "thats what she said" comments)

[ConcordCowboy]

Sorry ...... thats way to big.

(please no "thats what she said" comments)

:laugh2:

[burmafrd]

Katrina. Now that was totally typical of half stupidity right there. As has been shown since then, FEMA was actually not doing that badly. The real screw ups came from the Mayor and the Governor. BUT you can't admit that since they are DEMOCRATS.

[hank2k]

[QUOTE=AtlCB;2098076][QUOTE=hank2k;2097735]Tenet told Bush right before the war that is was a slam dunk that there were WMD's in Iraq. That is a fact that Tenet has admitted to. You and Tenet can't have it both ways. Also, exactly how would Tenet know if Iraq was a threat or not when we didn't have a single operative in Iraq.

Sorry, the "I was just stupid not a liar" myth doesnt hold up.
CIA briefed Bush prior to his telling the nation that Iraq was an imminent threat that it was not.
That specific instance is a lie no matter how you try to change the subject and say it isnt.

[AtlCB]

[QUOTE=AtlCB;2098076][QUOTE=hank2k;2097735]Tenet told Bush right before the war that is was a slam dunk that there were WMD's in Iraq. That is a fact that Tenet has admitted to. You and Tenet can't have it both ways. Also, exactly how would Tenet know if Iraq was a threat or not when we didn't have a single operative in Iraq.

Sorry, the "I was just stupid not a liar" myth doesnt hold up.
CIA briefed Bush prior to his telling the nation that Iraq was an imminent threat that it was not.
That specific instance is a lie no matter how you try to change the subject and say it isnt.

The specific instance is a lie even though Tenet admitted that it happenned.
Good argument. :rolleyes:

[Doomsday101]

Do you honestly think it is just about this book. Have you had your eyes sewn shut over the last 4-5 years. Honestly. This guy has been a disaster. Even if you take Iraq completely out of the equation, his foul up of the Hurricane Katrina disaster alone is enough that everybody should question this guy and disapprove of his presidency.

Well then congress should hold impeachment hearing then. The Dems control the both houses and can call for it so why haven't they? I guess because they have nothing that can constitute impeachment. Liking or not liking the President is not grounds from impeachment. I don't have my eyes sewn shut I see very well that some will call for impeachment without any cause because of their own bias.

As for Katrina that was messed up from the get go and could have been avoided had the 1st responders did their job but instead you had cops in New Orleans who abandoned the job the Governor who has full control over the National Guard who sat on her butt and did have them in position to come in as soon as the storm passed. Yet Bush takes the full blame? Give it a rest the bias BS is thick!!!

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well then congress should hold impeachment hearing then. The Dems control the both houses and can call for it so why haven't they? I guess because they have nothing that can constitute impeachment. Liking or not liking the President is not grounds from impeachment. I don't have my eyes sewn shut I see very well that some will call for impeachment without any cause because of their own bias.

As for Katrina that was messed up from the get go and could have been avoided had the 1st responders did their job but instead you had cops in New Orleans who abandoned the job the Governor who has full control over the National Guard who sat on her butt and did have them in position to come in as soon as the storm passed. Yet Bush takes the full blame? Give it a rest the bias BS is thick!!!

Bush does not take the full blame but many are unwilling to lay ANY blame on him. Bush himself said it should have been done better.

[zrinkill]

Bush does not take the full blame but many are unwilling to lay ANY blame on him. Bush himself said it should have been done better.

By many .......how many are you talking about?

I cannot think of any on this board ...... even the far far righties have said he did not run the War like they would have.

[Rackat]

If, big IF, Bush had done anything to be impeached for it would already be in the works. Nothing better than an impeachment of the incumbant party President to try and paint the incumbant party's candidate as the ne'er do well same old same old.

If there was something for the Dems to latch on to, they would have.

[iceberg]

Bush does not take the full blame but many are unwilling to lay ANY blame on him. Bush himself said it should have been done better.

anyone in here?

[Doomsday101]

Bush does not take the full blame but many are unwilling to lay ANY blame on him. Bush himself said it should have been done better.

Sure they could have all done better yet it has been Bush who has taken the most of the blame not Nagins and Gov. Kathleen Blanco. They sat back and did nothing while expecting the Feds to do it all and that played a big part in the overall problem. Working for Harris County I am on call as a 1st responder if this county faces a disaster be it man made or natural we are expected to come in right away and help out the people of Harris County, not wait around for the Feds to step in.

[AtlCB]

Sure they could have all done better yet it has been Bush who has taken the most of the blame not Nagins and Gov. Kathleen Blanco. They sat back and did nothing while expecting the Feds to do it all and that played a big part in the overall problem. Working for Harris County I am on call as a 1st responder if this county faces a disaster be it man made or natural we are expected to come in right away and help out the people of Harris County, not wait around for the Feds to step in.
The other problem is that the governor is supposed to request federal government support. Although, the federal government should have gone in without the request from the state, Kathleen Blanco cannot be left off the hook for her failure to make such a request.

[Doomsday101]

The other problem is that the governor is supposed to request federal government support. Although, the federal government should have gone in without the request from the state, Kathleen Blanco cannot be left off the hook for her failure to make such a request.

True also as Gov of a state she has authority over the states National Guard and they were not in position to go into New Orleans after the storm passed. No doubt many in charge could have done better but the 1st few hours after such an event are critical and for any state and local official to sit back and wait for the Feds to come in is irresponsible

[BrAinPaiNt]

By many .......how many are you talking about?

I cannot think of any on this board ...... even the far far righties have said he did not run the War like they would have.

I am talking about Katrina.

Time and Time again if it is brought up that he should be held responsible for the mess, others will only bring up the local and state government instead of saying he is responsible as well. Heck W himself said....

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday that "I take responsibility" for failures in dealing with Hurricane Katrina and that the disaster raised broader questions about the government's ability to respond to natural disasters as well as terror attacks.

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said at joint White House news conference with the president of Iraq.

"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.

[BrAinPaiNt]

By many .......how many are you talking about?

I cannot think of any on this board ...... even the far far righties have said he did not run the War like they would have.

Concerning Katrina. Dooms did not initially say bush, he wanted to lay the blame on the state and local government, Burm..the same.

[iceberg]

Concerning Katrina. Dooms did not initially say bush, he wanted to lay the blame on the state and local government, Burm..the same.

ok bp - then let me ask you this. what was the overall breakdown of command in katrina?

did people f things up long before bush had a chance to?

all i wanna know.

now you've said MANY won't lay any blame on bush. please show me 1. should be easy.

[BrAinPaiNt]

ok bp - then let me ask you this. what was the overall breakdown of command in katrina?

did people f things up long before bush had a chance to?

all i wanna know.

now you've said MANY won't lay any blame on bush. please show me 1. should be easy.

Burm refused to lay any of the blame of katrina on Bush. So there is your one. I do believe that cajun refused to lay any of the katrina blame on bush as well.

Furthermore I have NEVER said that blame was not to be also divied to city, parish or state government as well so to try to paint me in that corner will not work.

However the simple fact is...BUSH HAS ADMITTED THEY WERE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

[iceberg]

Burm refused to lay any of the blame of katrina on Bush. So there is your one. I do believe that cajun refused to lay any of the katrina blame on bush as well.

Furthermore I have NEVER said that blame was not to be also divied to city, parish or state government as well so to try to paint me in that corner will not work.

However the simple fact is...BUSH HAS ADMITTED THEY WERE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

ok - fine. i'll let them handle their own responses about "zero blame".

bush was part of the problem. so were the state/city folks. they were all messed up and nothing went right from the word go. bush was handed a bag of caca from what was before him and no didn't clean it up and fix it right.

just who are you aruging with when you get so adamant about bush never getting any blame? not me - i blame him for a lot of things. i just don't sit and let it fester so he's the only problem i see.

[BrAinPaiNt]

ok - fine. i'll let them handle their own responses about "zero blame".

bush was part of the problem. so were the state/city folks. they were all messed up and nothing went right from the word go. bush was handed a bag of caca from what was before him and no didn't clean it up and fix it right.

just who are you aruging with when you get so adamant about bush never getting any blame? not me - i blame him for a lot of things. i just don't sit and let it fester so he's the only problem i see.

Because once again...man this is like arguing with a brick wall, There are still people out there that refuse to assign blame to bush for something like Katrina. Geez I don't know how many times I have to say it before it will sink in. Do you deny there are people out there the feel bush is basically scott free in blame concerning katrina? If you do, so be it, I don't. Not only was it a mess up afterwards but even leading up to it he and people in the FEMA staff tried to act like they were never told it could be that bad.

Geez.

[Bach]

Katrina was a natural catastrophe and it could've and should've been handled better by all involved.

But some act like Bush conjured up the storm and led it directly to New Orleans and then purposefully didn't try to help anyone in the aftermath.

It just get beyond ridiculous with some people.

[iceberg]

Because once again...man this is like arguing with a brick wall, There are still people out there that refuse to assign blame to bush for something like Katrina. Geez I don't know how many times I have to say it before it will sink in. Do you deny there are people out there the feel bush is basically scott free in blame concerning katrina? If you do, so be it, I don't. Not only was it a mess up afterwards but even leading up to it he and people in the FEMA staff tried to act like they were never told it could be that bad.

Geez.

i don't give a flipcrap if they are there bp. i'm sure they are. i'm sure they're also in a minority. i'm sure there's someone who wants to carry bushes baby. i'm sure there's someone who wants to hang him from a tree.

have i ever said there were no people who refuse to blame bush for anything? to me that's as stupid as blaming him for everything. but because stupid people exist and think stupid irrational things (generally speaking, not stereotyping anyone!) doesn't mean i have to follow them around and go YOU'RE STUPID BUSH SUCKS!!!!

i'm not a one or the other person. at least not in this instance but probably in others. we all are that "extreme" person sooner or later.

like i said, i have no idea who you're arguing with on this whole katrina thing. if burm (now there's your brick wall) or cajun feel bush has done no wrong - that's up to them and why not go argue with them vs. come shout at me about it and wonder why i don't get as emotionally involved as you do.

[iceberg]

Katrina was a natural catastrophe and it could've and should've been handled better by all involved.

But some act like Bush conjured up the storm and led it directly to New Orleans and then purposefully didn't try to help anyone in the aftermath.

It just get beyond ridiculous with some people.

never knew i'd ever consider you one of the rational thinkers in the world. : ) but i think we can all get fixated at times and that's part of what we need to see *and* understand. when we're fixated vs. when we emotionally detach ourselves from what we cannot change and think more about it with our minds, not upset hearts.

[burmafrd]

Brain as usual is out to lunch. I have posted before that Bush screwed up in some areas. Now as regards Katrina, and FEMA, one could say that he screwed up in appointing the FEMA head. Fair enough.
BUT as regards what happened afterwards its stupid to BLame BUSH as Brain and the other libs do. THE LARGEST PORTION OF BLAME is on two people= Nagin and Blanco. Of the two more Nagin buts it a close call. Bush asked both of them if they wanted the NAtional Guard in before the storm. NEITHER ONE DID. What was he supposed to do? If he ordered them in he would have been ripped a new one by Brain and other libs saying he overstepped his authority. Nagin and BLanco both screwed up big time. But Brain and others want to blame bush not their democratic friends.

[Bach]

never knew i'd ever consider you one of the rational thinkers in the world. : ) but i think we can all get fixated at times and that's part of what we need to see *and* understand. when we're fixated vs. when we emotionally detach ourselves from what we cannot change and think more about it with our minds, not upset hearts.

I'd say the feeling is mutual. ;)

[iceberg]

Brain as usual is out to lunch. I have posted before that Bush screwed up in some areas. Now as regards Katrina, and FEMA, one could say that he screwed up in appointing the FEMA head. Fair enough.
BUT as regards what happened afterwards its stupid to BLame BUSH as Brain and the other libs do. THE LARGEST PORTION OF BLAME is on two people= Nagin and Blanco. Of the two more Nagin buts it a close call. Bush asked both of them if they wanted the NAtional Guard in before the storm. NEITHER ONE DID. What was he supposed to do? If he ordered them in he would have been ripped a new one by Brain and other libs saying he overstepped his authority. Nagin and BLanco both screwed up big time. But Brain and others want to blame bush not their democratic friends.

i think it's pretty safe to say you and i are not in "cahoots" on anything. to me you can be just as whacked as sassy on the flip side.

so let me ask - have you EVER said bush was blameless in katrina?

you and cajun were named. i did not refute it cause that was not my place to speak for you. but yes, you were named. from what i see of your reply i'd say no - you did not say bush was blameless.

that leave cajun for in here. or bp can show a quote where you directly w/o a doubt say bush is blameless. otherwise, for reasons i would call understable for how it gets in here, bp is wrong in saying you hold bush blame free about katrina.

to me - there's a lot of people to blame. are there people out there who hold bush blameless?

sure.

i'll bet there are people out there who say they mayor of NO and the gov of LA are blameless also.

you can't stop an idiot from being an idiot and thinking idiotic things. but you can stop yourself.

so if holding someone blameless is the focus/reason for anger, why not get mad at the % who'll hold the mayor and gov blameless also?

to me, cause they're not bush.

to me, i don't defend bush, i argue against irrational thinking.

those attacking call it defending who they're attacking. i see subsets at war going nowhere in that line of thought.

bp has asked me why i don't get angry about all the wrong things bush has done. he's done a lot.

probably because i can't change them. i stand a better chance of changing the mind of sassy than changing the course of the world by hating bush and putting blame at his feet.

but because i don't get involved in every bush bash doesn't mean i defend bush on all accounts.

1 or 1000.

not me.

[iceberg]

I'd say the feeling is mutual. ;)

since i view world politics and general train of thought to be > than singular bashing, i'll listen more next time you talk about jones and why. can't promise to agree, but i'll try more to hear where you're coming from. best i can ever do. : )

[silverbear]

TO answer Doomsday101, no I haven't read the book. I know, in your mind that means this is all gossip and that, somehow, discredits any kind of discussion on the extensive exerpts being quoted all over the internet and credited news outlets.

I do applaud you, however, on faithful use of the 'playbook'. I think it is rule Number 1, whenever you are unable to defend a position on its merit you simply attack the messenger and you can avoid all those pesky facts that get in the way of your agenda.

LOL... sounds EXACTLY what the Bushies are doing to Scott these days...

[silverbear]

"Well, why, all of a sudden, if he 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. Certainly let's look at the politics of it"


---Scott McClellen (http://www. /news/releases/2004/03/20040322-4.html#4)


:rolleyes:

And what "politics" do you reckon McClellan is engaged in?? He's not running for office, or supporting anybody that is, as best as I can tell...

Yes, he's promoting a book... so yes, he'll want to emphasize the controversial aspects of that book, that's what sells... but he still says he's a Dubya ADMIRER, a loyalist if you will, so what he says is doubly damning...

This is not a malcontent, trying to get a little payback on the boss who fired him... this was a member of the inner circle, who apparently reached a point where he was uncomfortable with what this administration was doing, so he resigned...

[vta]

And what "politics" do you reckon McClellan is engaged in?? He's not running for office, or supporting anybody that is, as best as I can tell...

Yes, he's promoting a book... so yes, he'll want to emphasize the controversial aspects of that book, that's what sells... but he still says he's a Dubya ADMIRER, a loyalist if you will, so what he says is doubly damning...

This is not a malcontent, trying to get a little payback on the boss who fired him... this was a member of the inner circle, who apparently reached a point where he was uncomfortable with what this administration was doing, so he resigned...

I have no idea what McClellen is after, but I do know when someone claims they were basically duped into telling lies, then makes claims about knowing the truth about a thing, they're full of sh*t.

I could have and have told you that the admin lied about Iraq. Were I in any position to transfer lies, I wouldn't be playing the babe in the woods routine to sell some books.

It's a classic ploy to pretend to admire the one getting piled on, when you join in; it tends to seem more genuine, as your reaction to it evidences. It's contrived at this point and not above scrutiny.

He wasn't a part of an administrative inner circle, he was a White House Spokesman, who was told what to say to the press.

He knew all along that it was a bogus excuse, just like I did. Only I won't present false indignation and pretend to have been duped.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I have no idea what McClellen is after, but I do know when someone claims they were basically duped into telling lies, then makes claims about knowing the truth about a thing, they're full of sh*t.

I could have and have told you that the admin lied about Iraq. Were I in any position to transfer lies, I wouldn't be playing the babe in the woods routine to sell some books.

It's a classic ploy to pretend to admire the one getting piled on, when you join in; it tends to seem more genuine, as your reaction to it evidences. It's contrived at this point and not above scrutiny.

He wasn't a part of an administrative inner circle, he was a White House Spokesman, who was told what to say to the press.

He knew all along that it was a bogus excuse, just like I did. Only I won't present false indignation and pretend to have been duped.

For the most part I agree. Except in the Plame situation I think they told him to say what they wanted him to say and he was blindsided at LEAST one time by some reporters. I don't remember the exact questions but you could tell during the PC that he was completely blind sided by it. It was obvious enough at the time that he really had no clue. However I don't see it as much of a stretch to say he did find out later about it.

So he is far from innocent in much of the things he is acting like he was innocent in. Furthermore I think he indeed did get a good deal of info on other topics and did know quite a bit. I think Press Secretaries do know a great deal, if they never did I would have to question why Ari got immunity in the plame affair.

And once again as I have stated before. It would be one thing if it was just Scotty and one other person coming forward with issues later. However it has been quite a number of people including at the very least one person in Powell that I think many would consider a person of credibility for the most part.

[vta]

For the most part I agree. Except in the Plame situation I think they told him to say what they wanted him to say and he was blindsided at LEAST one time by some reporters. I don't remember the exact questions but you could tell during the PC that he was completely blind sided by it. It was obvious enough at the time that he really had no clue. However I don't see it as much of a stretch to say he did find out later about it.

So he is far from innocent in much of the things he is acting like he was innocent in. Furthermore I think he indeed did get a good deal of info on other topics and did know quite a bit. I think Press Secretaries do know a great deal, if they never did I would have to question why Ari got immunity in the plame affair.

And once again as I have stated before. It would be one thing if it was just Scotty and one other person coming forward with issues later. However it has been quite a number of people including at the very least one person in Powell that I think many would consider a person of credibility for the most part.

Powell is credible, no doubt. Plenty have reasons to talk about this administration, McClellen, I think is just full of it. Richard Clarke, whom McClellen is blasting in that quote above has more credibility. At this point it really is just piling on. It's the popular thing to do.

[DFWJC]

Katrina was a natural catastrophe and it could've and should've been handled better by all involved.

But some act like Bush conjured up the storm and led it directly to New Orleans and then purposefully didn't try to help anyone in the aftermath.

It just get beyond ridiculous with some people.

I agree. I don't think anyone would say the situation was handled well, but arm-chair quarterbacking a diaster in hindsite is spineless at best. This was a once in a lifetime event in which everyone at every level screwed up, but some always (and some soley) point the finger at Bush. The guy has made enough mistakes as it is, but those that hate will hate.

[Bach]

since i view world politics and general train of thought to be > than singular bashing, i'll listen more next time you talk about jones and why. can't promise to agree, but i'll try more to hear where you're coming from. best i can ever do. : )

:toast:

[Bach]

I agree. I don't think anyone would say the situation was handled well, but arm-chair quarterbacking a diaster in hindsite is spineless at best. This was a once in a lifetime event in which everyone at every level screwed up, but some always (and some soley) point the finger at Bush. The guy has made enough mistakes as it is, but those that hate will hate.

Exactly.

The mayor, the Governor, FEMA, the President. All of them could've handled things better, but for some Bush is the easy target even though most situations like this one involve the local and state governments the most.

[Vintage]

Not going to lie: at the time, I thought the Iraq War was necessary. I bought into the WMD stuff....

I am not going to condemn the war, however. But I am going to re-examine this another ten years down the road and make my own conclusion. If Iraq becomes a successful democracy (in a strategic location), then I think you can claim it to be successful.... hopefully it ends up like that.

But I do believe the Bush administration really botched the Iraq War. Firing the Ba'athists in Iraq (when many/most were only party members by name, not actual "actions") was beyond stupid. It shredded the fragile social infastructure, left thousands unemployed, etc. And it gave the appearance to many Iraqis that we were indeed an occupying force; not a liberation force. Incredibly, incredibly stupid. Same thing with dissolving the Iraqi army.

Lack of planning was pretty killer too.

I am still "ok" with the Iraq War (though, I am nowhere near as supportive as I once was).... but what really gets me is how poorly managed it was.

It was like Clinton planned it....

Good news is; Bush's regime is near the end. I hope we can get out of it without attacking Iran. Because if there was ever a time where we needed a President to get **** straight in an attack on Iran; its probably now. And Bush's botched job of Iraq gives me no faith in him. Obama doesn't inspire much confidence either. Hopefully McCain can.

[iceberg]

I agree. I don't think anyone would say the situation was handled well, but arm-chair quarterbacking a diaster in hindsite is spineless at best. This was a once in a lifetime event in which everyone at every level screwed up, but some always (and some soley) point the finger at Bush. The guy has made enough mistakes as it is, but those that hate will hate.

this is where my mindset it. it's also why i don't understand the constant "venom" to bush. well, i do to a degree when hillary starts talking but that's when i have to remind myself that if i really wanna see outside my own eyes and "practice what i preach" i gotta put that hate away and listen a bit more. even then if i just can't do it, running around going HILLARY SUCKS won't change her or stop her from being who she is. it won't change anything except my own blood pressure.

so i rarely focus on that.

but i like the way you put it, dfwjc. it's how i see it as well.

sure bush screwed up.
they all did.
sure bush has people who refuse to put ANY blame at his feet. i don't know any but ok. i'll buy that.

but the mayor and gov i'm sure ALSO have people who refuse to put blame at THEIR feet. why not get mad at them?

if the act of not putting blame where it goes is what sets you off, then the anger/rage should be to all.

if you focus on a singular to get mad at, then that's what you're mad at and no one else joining in on that mad-a-thon is what gets upsetting cause it's harder to justify your own anger. like minds prefer like company, that's all. that's expected. but it should also be understood and put into play in as much as getting mad to begin with.

in time i think it does. usually. but not in the middle of a rage-a-thon. i like those words now. mad-a-thon and rage-a-thon.

anyway - it takes time to understand people. sometimes a lifetime. but what else ya got to do?

[DFWJC]

Bush does not take the full blame but many are unwilling to lay ANY blame on him. Bush himself said it should have been done better.

True dat

[iceberg]

Not going to lie: at the time, I thought the Iraq War was necessary. I bought into the WMD stuff....

I am not going to condemn the war, however. But I am going to re-examine this another ten years down the road and make my own conclusion. If Iraq becomes a successful democracy (in a strategic location), then I think you can claim it to be successful.... hopefully it ends up like that.

But I do believe the Bush administration really botched the Iraq War. Firing the Ba'athists in Iraq (when many/most were only party members by name, not actual "actions") was beyond stupid. It shredded the fragile social infastructure, left thousands unemployed, etc. And it gave the appearance to many Iraqis that we were indeed an occupying force; not a liberation force. Incredibly, incredibly stupid. Same thing with dissolving the Iraqi army.

Lack of planning was pretty killer too.

I am still "ok" with the Iraq War (though, I am nowhere near as supportive as I once was).... but what really gets me is how poorly managed it was.

It was like Clinton planned it....

yea, i don't think bush put enough homework in on understanding their culture and what would happen w/o saddam keeping people at bay. i'll fully admit i'll forever have my doubts on what happened to the wmd. i don't buy fully into the "bluff". bluffs are usually short term and sooner or later someone will call you on it. bush did. 12 years later. but we didn't find them and i hate conspiracy theories so, who knows. i just see room for doubt.

i want our guys out of there and to come home but i want us to man up to our mistakes and do whatever we can to correct it now and when iraq can fend for itself, bring troops home and tell iraqs government they owe us a load of oil for our efforts in their behalf.

my biggest fear is whoever goes in next caves to the public opinion and pulls the troops out now sending the region into chaos. right or wrong we're there and if we're to be the "good guys" we can't just walk away now.

[DFWJC]

but i like the way you put it, dfwjc. it's how i see it as well.

sure bush screwed up.
they all did.
sure bush has people who refuse to put ANY blame at his feet. i don't know any but ok. i'll buy that.

but the mayor and gov i'm sure ALSO have people who refuse to put blame at THEIR feet. why not get mad at them?

if the act of not putting blame where it goes is what sets you off, then the anger/rage should be to all.

if you focus on a singular to get mad at, then that's what you're mad at and no one else joining in on that mad-a-thon is what gets upsetting cause it's harder to justify your own anger. like minds prefer like company, that's all. that's expected. but it should also be understood and put into play in as much as getting mad to begin with.

in time i think it does. usually. but not in the middle of a rage-a-thon. i like those words now. mad-a-thon and rage-a-thon.

anyway - it takes time to understand people. sometimes a lifetime. but what else ya got to do?

I'm with you there. Sadly, once some people are locked in on an opinion--even if it is preconceived due to previous bias--it is so very hard to get them off that focus.

Ha. yeah those terms mad-a-thon and rag-a-thon apply way to often these days.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Brain as usual is out to lunch. I have posted before that Bush screwed up in some areas. Now as regards Katrina, and FEMA, one could say that he screwed up in appointing the FEMA head. Fair enough.
BUT as regards what happened afterwards its stupid to BLame BUSH as Brain and the other libs do. THE LARGEST PORTION OF BLAME is on two people= Nagin and Blanco. Of the two more Nagin buts it a close call. Bush asked both of them if they wanted the NAtional Guard in before the storm. NEITHER ONE DID. What was he supposed to do? If he ordered them in he would have been ripped a new one by Brain and other libs saying he overstepped his authority. Nagin and BLanco both screwed up big time. But Brain and others want to blame bush not their democratic friends.

Stating that "to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," President Bush on Tuesday accepted blame for part of the sluggish and stumbling response to Hurricane Katrina and its disastrous aftermath.

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said at a joint White House news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. "And I want to know what went right and what went wrong."

Furthermore I would NOT have ripped bush for overstepping his boundries concerning Katrina and I HAVE ripped Nagin and Blanco in the past, you were just not around at the time.

Not only did Nagin do a piss poor job, but he also took rich VISITORS to the state and held them up with him in a posh hotel instead of taking care of his own statesmen.

Blanco should have allowed NG from the get go and did not.

This does NOT take away from bush admitting they did a bad job from the Federal level.

Thanks for playing...SUPER DUPER Partisian boy who blames others of doing much less.

[iceberg]

I'm with you there. Sadly, once some people are locked in on an opinion--even if it is preconceived due to previous bias--it is so very hard to get them off that focus.

Ha. yeah those terms mad-a-thon and rag-a-thon apply way to often these days.

agreed on the focus. so since i see that in others i try to look even harder for it in me. am i guilty of that and if so, stop it. ain't easy cause i hate hillary but practice what i preach cause i believe it, not trying to win an argument.

anyway - it does seem when you say NO ONE PUTS BLAME AT HIS FEET!!! that's only where you're looking if you don't apply that anger-factor to all who also have people doing that.

if one bugs you but 2 don't, then the reason you apply is selective, not the reason itself.

i have NO idea if that made any sense.

[Maikeru-sama]

This does NOT take away from bush admitting they did a bad job from the Federal level.


Right on the freakin money.

The idea that this person's dereliction of duty totally absolves the other person of being guilty of the aforementioned is insane and downright foolish.

George W. Bush has to shoulder some of the blame as well as the people who ignored the warnings and public officals at the City, State and Local Governments.

[Rackat]

I think where a lot of people get upset is not that this or that person didn't get blamed, but the level of blame assigned to those that should have handled it better.

Who is more culpable in the grand scheme of things that went wrong before during and after Katrina? I would assign the blame in this order:

1. Kathleen Blanco - As Governor, she should have done far more to prepare not only her state, but the largest city in her state.
2. Nagin - As Mayor of the largest city in the state, he should have insisted on more preparation locally and from the state government, as well as asking the Federal government to be on standbye if needed.
3. FEMA/Bush - (can't remember the Director's name) should never have held the position. Bush should have reacted sooner and removed the dunderhead.
4. The surrounding states - if they had not been so well prepared and reacted so well to the catastrophe, then New Orleans and Louisianna would not have looked so bad, thus making all of the above mentioned people look even worse.

[PosterChild]

I think where a lot of people get upset is not that this or that person didn't get blamed, but the level of blame assigned to those that should have handled it better.

Who is more culpable in the grand scheme of things that went wrong before during and after Katrina? I would assign the blame in this order:

1. Kathleen Blanco - As Governor, she should have done far more to prepare not only her state, but the largest city in her state.
2. Nagin - As Mayor of the largest city in the state, he should have insisted on more preparation locally and from the state government, as well as asking the Federal government to be on standbye if needed.
3. FEMA/Bush - (can't remember the Director's name) should never have held the position. Bush should have reacted sooner and removed the dunderhead.
4. The surrounding states - if they had not been so well prepared and reacted so well to the catastrophe, then New Orleans and Louisianna would not have looked so bad, thus making all of the above mentioned people look even worse.

http://www.orthehighway.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/blog-brownie-WEB2.jpg

[vta]

http://www.orthehighway.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/blog-brownie-WEB2.jpg

:lmao2:

[PosterChild]

:lmao2:

Ain't Fridays grand?

[vta]

Ain't Fridays grand?

Especially when they're pay day.
I'll like 'em much better if we can get HR to approve summer hours and I can spend them at home. :)

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://www.orthehighway.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/blog-brownie-WEB2.jpg

You get a :starspin for the day. :laugh2:

[ConcordCowboy]

3. FEMA/Bush - (can't remember the Director's name) should never have held the position. Bush should have reacted sooner and removed the dunderhead.


http://www.needlenose.com/i/swopa/BushBrownieChertoff.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO2xi0uLnj8

[iceberg]

I think where a lot of people get upset is not that this or that person didn't get blamed, but the level of blame assigned to those that should have handled it better.

Who is more culpable in the grand scheme of things that went wrong before during and after Katrina? I would assign the blame in this order:

1. Kathleen Blanco - As Governor, she should have done far more to prepare not only her state, but the largest city in her state.
2. Nagin - As Mayor of the largest city in the state, he should have insisted on more preparation locally and from the state government, as well as asking the Federal government to be on standbye if needed.
3. FEMA/Bush - (can't remember the Director's name) should never have held the position. Bush should have reacted sooner and removed the dunderhead.
4. The surrounding states - if they had not been so well prepared and reacted so well to the catastrophe, then New Orleans and Louisianna would not have looked so bad, thus making all of the above mentioned people look even worse.

to me this is fair and "in order" of how events should have been handled. if you pass a bag of crap onto the next guy it just gets harder and harder to fix properly. to me if you hate bush though, he rises to the top of the list so you can "justify" the hate so to speak. i just don't get that.

[burmafrd]

Have to laugh at Brain calling me super duper homer - look in the mirror brain and you see the exact same thing.

[iceberg]

Have to laugh at Brain calling me super duper homer - look in the mirror brain and you see the exact same thing.

so you admit you're a super duper homer?

[burmafrd]

Got no problem with the truth.

[iceberg]

Got no problem with the truth.

fair enough on that one.