Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditThe Bush administration employed propaganda techniques, political spin and deception to promote and then justify a war with Iraq that was unwise and unnecessary.
And a "too-deferential" national press corps allowed the president and his aides to get away with it.
Who makes this devastating, if not entirely new, charge?
The man responsible for spinning the story of the Bush presidency, former White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
In a memoir that will be published Monday, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, the veteran campaign and White House aide to George W. Bush portrays his former boss and those around him as permanent campaigners who frequently sacrificed the good of the country to achieve dubious political and policy goals.
McClellan is sharply critical of the Bush White House's handling of definitional domestic policy challenges, particularly Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.
But nowhere is the former press aide so devastating in his critique of his former boss as on the issue of how the United States was steered into the quagmire that is Iraq.
Bush, he writes, is guilty of a "failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and (of) rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath."
Accusing the president of engaging in "self-deception" when it came to the facts from the Middle East, McClellan explains that Bush "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."
"[I]n this regard, (Bush) was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security," argues McClellan, who is blistering in his description of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the president's former national security adviser, as "too accommodating" and too concerned about protecting her own reputation to challenge strategies that she had to know were ill-advised and dangerous.
And what of the free press that is supposed to serve as a watchdog on executive excess and deceit?
"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 former spokesman writes. "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."
McClellan, Bush's traveling press secretary during the 2000 campaign and a former deputy press secretary to the president who served as White House spokesman from 2003 until 2006, is blunt and detailed in discussing administration efforts to destroy the reputation of a critic of the rush to war, former Ambassador Joe Wilson (and Wilson's wife, outed-CIA agent Valerie Plame).
"I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood," he writes of his defenses of key players in the scandal such as White House political czar Karl Rove and fellow White House advisers Elliot Abrams and I. Lewis ‘Scooter' Libby. "It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively."
While Bush, too, may have been deceived, McClellan explains that "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."
That lie, and the others related to the war, are the bitter legacy McClellan wrestles with in an agonizing account of the White House in which he served. That account will serve as an essential document of the Bush presidency, and of the current campaign to replace it.
Above all, however, McClellan's book is a cautionary tale that reminds us that powerful men and the governments they guide must never be allowed to wage wars of whim.
"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder," he writes. "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."
I'm of two minds about Mr. McClellan. One part of me wants to call him a coward for waiting until now.
On the other hand, he couldn't have picked a better time for his book to come out - both for his pocketbook and for the election.
Either way, it's yet another proof that the Bush/Cheney administration is filled with liars. They don't mispeak, they don't "forget and make a mistake" (a la the Libbey defense) - they lie. They know they're lying, then they lie about the lying.
Posted by johnhummel at 05/28/2008 @ 12:31am
ah, the wisdom of the neoconmen.....
Wednesday, May 28, 2008 9:20:40 AM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 01:00am
how ironic.
the wheel only begins to grind once the "bread" has already been made.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008 9:24:13 AM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 01:04am
Interesting to see how our local right-wingers "explain away" McClellan.
Do they say he was telling the truth then...but lying now? If so, why should we believe that he was telling the truth THEN?
And what "sinister" motivation will they accuse him of?
BTW, everybody's right...this is the first of an AVALANCHE of "tell-alls" that will come out of the Bush Administration...and not ALL of them will be easy to "explain away" as "disgruntled former officials"....especially when several key things keep popping up over and over and over again.
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 01:05am
<i><b>McCLELLAN IS A PAID WRIGHT OPERATIVE!!!</b></i>
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 01:15am
Wouldn't it be nice to have a politician that stands up and tells the truth while still in office...before thousands of people get killed for no reason.
I guess the days of doing what's right no matter what are long gone.
Sad.
PS: Dana Perino is the worst Press Secretary in U.S. history, bar none! I think the news agencies should put together a highlight reel of all her excruciating press conferences and release it on YouTube.com! She's so hilarious it's beyond sad.
Posted by CrushInfamy at 05/28/2008 @ 01:25am
CrushInfamy
check out dana at her worst!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Cvg9deslg&fmt=18
and her worster!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKla10sh3hE&fmt=18
and her worsterest!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcc0VFTp2p8&&fmt=18
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 01:44am
McClellan presents a prima facie case for impeachment. An investigations committee should be organized at once, McClellan called as its 1st witness.
BTW: Bush & Cheney can be impeached even after they've left office. Impeachment is not a criminal judicial proceeding. If found guilty, their punishment is prescribed: they may never again hold a position of public trust. More importantly the current precedent -- that a president can with impunity & without a declaration of war invade & occupy another country on the basis of lies -- would be overturned. Those officials not granted preemptive pardons/commutations by Bush could have their crimes, at the very least, investigated.
Posted by sloper at 05/28/2008 @ 02:07am
If found guilty, their punishment is prescribed: they may never again hold a position of public trust.
Posted by sloper
well, i think that's a given........
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:25am
Posted by sloper at 05/28/2008
A HSUBfoolish dream, slope.
Obama (and the country) will want to "move on" after Bush leaves.
Their punishment is ...their place in history. Likely nobody even NAMED "Bush" or "Cheney" (even if not related) will be elected President for 100 years.
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 02:26am
Likely nobody even NAMED "Bush" or "Cheney" (even if not related) will be elected President for 100 years.
Posted by Mask
i honestly don't think they ever have been!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:42am
I find 3 things difficult to believe:
1) That anyone in this country actually believes the Bush administration didn't lie and deceive this country into a terrible war. McClellan merely confirms what anyone with half a brain already knew.
2) That anyone believes the job of press secretary is anything other than saying exactly what the president tells him or her to say. If you have a problem with half truths or lies, don't take the job.
3) That anyone believes Scott McClellan, or anyone else for that matter, could have questioned or challenged the policies of this administration and not been hung out to dry...or just hung. For Rove or any of these idiots to say, "Well, I don't remember Scott ever raising these points when he was the Press Secretary" is just ridiculous.
I'm sure McClellan was willing to swallow all the bullshit because it kept him in Washington. If you're a politico, this is the Super Bowl, right? What I'm curious about is why exactly did he leave. Did he finally get a conscience or was he just thrown out with the trash?
Posted by sbenasso at 05/28/2008 @ 02:46am
<i>Obama (and the country) will want to "move on" after Bush leaves.
</i>
Much like Ford wanted to move on after Nixon left. What more punishment could have been meted out to Nixon? He lived the rest of his life virtually in exile, shunned by his country. His punishment, like Bush's, was his place in history.
The truth about Nixon gradually came out, as will the truth about Bush. Justice will eventually be served.
Personally, my interest lies more in preventing such abuses of power as we have witnessed under Bush from ever happening again.
Posted by Balrog at 05/28/2008 @ 02:49am
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008
Would it not be nice if the next time I get pulled over for speeding that I could ask the trooper if it would be Ok if my punishment could be my place in history. Too bad we all don't get to live by the politicians rules.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/28/2008 @ 02:50am
Yet another albatross to hang around McCain's & the GOP necks in the national election. The Dems' cup runneth over ... unless Billary succeed in knocking it over.
Posted by sloper at 05/28/2008 @ 03:00am
Congressional subpoenas? ignored.
how about all those blacklisted during the 50s, those Hollywood ten or whatever. they faced jail time for not appearing, and many served that time. my how things have changed.
McLellan was is no politician, he was a hired hand.
I think it was hugely damaging to our laws and our nation that Nixon's crimes were not punished, and exposed in detail.
for one thing the co conspiritors would not still be hanging around in public life.
also the very real crimes of Reagan and his gangsters would also not have gone unpunished.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 03:09am
MCLellan was a professional liar. the others were just amateurs.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 03:14am
Just think how many lives might have been saved in Iraq if Bush staffers who felt the same as McClellan (obviously felt,) had jumped ship when it mattered most- before we got ourselves into this quagmire. It would've been much easier for doubters to defy Bush and Cheney's deceptive plan had they been united and bravely spoke what they knew to be the truth. Apparently, "mum was the word" and McClellan became the spokesman of deception. I blame him as much as the Bush administration for the American lives and treasure lost. Shame on McClellan for holding his tongue to protect his career. The blood on his hands can't be wiped away with the pages of his book.
Posted by kevnbro at 05/28/2008 @ 03:33am
And his "revelations" are new? I thought anyone with a couple of working brain cells knew all this long ago. And now the breaking news: Beatles score smash hit with "I Wanna Hold Your Hand"!!!
Posted by smckenna at 05/28/2008 @ 03:36am
The blood on his hands can't be wiped away with the pages of his book. Posted by kevnbro at 05/28/2008
NOR WITH ALL THE MONEY HE'S MAKING ON IT.
McClellan can use that money for a good lawyer, in the unlikely event that a congressional committee ever summons him to testify, under oath, about CheneyBush misdeeds.
Like the former CIA director who waited until he was paid $4 million to tell some truths, having lied on the same points when he was merely testifying before a committee & on the public payroll. He got away with it, however, so why can't McClellan? And the parade of GOP ex-officials to come, looking to cleanse themselves as they cash their royalty checks.
This could be averted if the invertebrate Dem leadership acquires backbone & opens investigations.
But we won't hold our breaths will we ...
Posted by sloper at 05/28/2008 @ 03:45am
Posted by smckenna at 05/28/2008
a little Beatlemania/history.
the Fab Four flunked their first big record company audition.
no major record company here in the US would touch them, even after their huge success in Britain.
I saw their first album in the cut out bins, until "I wanna hold..."
the Beatles also recorded I want to hold your hand and She loves you in GERMAN
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 03:53am
of course McLellan is guilty as sin. he should have written that book in time for the 2004 election
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 03:56am
You guys shouldn't get your knickers in such a twist. The book isn't due out until next Monday. And, for those of you who are willing to purchase his book, don't act surprised or disappointed when Mr. McClellen doesn't condemn his former boss outright. Like everything else that has "teaser" headlines, it'll be interesting to see how far it goes up on the best seller list before folks realize they've spent $25 on book that talks more about the writer's life than the initial subject headline.
Posted by ACook at 05/28/2008 @ 04:00am
The ONLY way to prevent the crimes of the Bush mob from being repeated is to perp-walk Bush and Cheney and the rest out of their mansions and put them in prison for the rest of their lives for the murderous crime s they've committed. We already know that exposing the crimes of previous Presidents like Nixon has not worked as a deterrent.
Posted by mrpoizun at 05/28/2008 @ 12:26pm
The ONLY way to prevent the crimes of the Bush mob from being repeated is to perp-walk Bush and Cheney and the rest out of their mansions and put them in prison for the rest of their lives for the murderous crime s they've committed. We already know that exposing the crimes of previous Presidents like Nixon has not worked as a deterrent.
Posted by mrpoizun at 05/28/2008 @ 12:29pm
"this book and its "revelations" is but the opening salvo."
"there will be many others as the truth will go from a trickle to a flood."
"look for congress to repudiate Bush, especially the repubs who are staring defeat in the face."
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008
If I were you, I wouldn't bet the farm on your predictions.
Posted by ACook at 05/28/2008 @ 12:36pm
If found guilty, their punishment is prescribed: they may never again hold a position of public trust.
Sloper, I don't think this is true. what happens in a successful impeachment is that the guilty person loses their position.
there is nothing to prevent them from seeking and attaining another political office.
other than public opinion of the voters.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 12:36pm
This admin has certainly earned its dark corner of history....
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/28/2008 @ 12:37pm
How do you "armchair" a "game" when the objectives that define victory are constantly changing? Constant changing of the rules of "play" simply keep the "game" going indefinitely and keep both the "players" and "fans" in a state of confusion. The fact that you even make such a lackadaisical comparison of war and sport, is apathetic and insensitive. Regardless, I'm certain however that it won't be too terribly long before the Bush administration has found some way to declare victory by pointing out some successful objective that we've all yet to hear about. McClelland in the meantime should announce that all proceeds of his "memoir" sales will go to the rehab of the only Iraq warriors who can (if they should so choose,) forgive him- the permanently maimed and scarred who return home alive.
Posted by kevnbro at 05/28/2008 @ 12:39pm
Ah, Texans, and yes, I am one too - generally too ashamed to admit it. Scotty's mommy was our State Comptroller and tried to run against Rick Perry - sadly, his hair was much better than hers. Scott, on the other hand, deserves to be hung out to dry just like his "compatriots" Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Powell et al.
Posted by AuntBec at 05/28/2008 @ 12:43pm
Grant's Sec of War was impeached after resigning from office.
There is no pardon for impeachment. And only the one penalty: you can't come back in "an office of trust or profit under the United States."
That's the law. It's up to the Dems to enforce it.
Posted by sloper at 05/28/2008 @ 12:55pm
Grant's Sec of War was Belknap.
Posted by sloper at 05/28/2008 @ 12:57pm
Posted by Benchrest at 05/28/2008
Allow me the introductions....
Benchrest....real world
real world....Benchrest.
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 12:58pm
Posted by ACook at 05/28/2008
So you tell us not to make judgements about the book before it actually hits the shelf, then you make a judgement about the book before it hits the shelf.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 12:59pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcc0VFTp2p8&&fmt=18
Posted by frosty zoom
You are right. That clip does show Helen Thomas at her worst!
Posted by abell12ct at 05/28/2008 @ 1:02pm
"Ah, Texans, and yes, I am one too - generally too ashamed to admit it." Posted by AuntBec at 05/28/2008
Don't feel bad AuntBec- in many cases, that statement is appropriate at the international level as well: "Ah, Americans, and yes, I am one too- generally too ashamed to admit it."
Posted by kevnbro at 05/28/2008 @ 1:02pm
This administration is just as bad as the last one. How many innocent Iraqis died because Bill Clinton kept the war going against Saddam for his whole presidency.
Posted by abell12ct at 05/28/2008 @ 1:04pm
I find it funny that Happy and Lv and many of our other local conserves will keep supporting Bush's decision even as more and more people come out saying that it was unnecessary and a lie. Happy just argued in here that the war was necessary even after he read a quote from a member of the administration who helped them to propagate their lies said it was unnecessary. Obviously someone doesn't have their facts right and I am going to go ahead and say it's probably the person with no real facts at all beyond opinion and a press line delivered by a man who admitted they were all lying and knew they were lying. Just goes to show people will believe with undying conviction anything their party tells them even when the people who told them the lies say they were lying.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 1:04pm
sloper, you are correct, and I'm not.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 1:06pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/28/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Your usual warmongering crap, Happy. And pretty easy for you to spout , as long as it's not your life on the line. I've asked you before and I ask you again - when are you going to put your safety where your stated principles lie? Or are you simply far less cavalier about your own life than you are about the lives of everyone else?
Posted by jmusolino at 05/28/2008 @ 1:08pm
This administration is just as bad as the last one. How many innocent Iraqis died because Bill Clinton kept the war going against Saddam for his whole presidency.
Posted by abell12ct at 05/28/2008 |
you must learn to make distinctions. Iraqi deaths certainly were not in the 100,000s during the Clinton years.
American deaths were not in the 4,000s either.
where does that leave your post? piffle
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 1:11pm
If I were you, I wouldn't bet the farm on your predictions.
Posted by ACook at 05/28/2008 |
many if not most repugs share my dim view of their electoral chances.
how many special elections in supposedly safe repug districts have they lost recently?
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 1:14pm
"how many special elections in supposedly safe repug districts have they lost recently?"
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008
Three, that I know of. But that doesn't mean the newbies won't keep the status quo.
Heckuva job the dem congress is doing.
Posted by ACook at 05/28/2008 @ 1:30pm
Komm, Gib Mir Deine Hand
a classic....
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 1:30pm
not as wacky as nat king cole (pbuh) singing in spanish....
<i>solamente una vez.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 1:31pm
Posted by ACook at 05/28/2008
sure, change the subject.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 1:34pm
This administration is just as bad as the last one. How many innocent Iraqis died because Bill Clinton kept the war going against Saddam for his whole presidency.
Posted by abell12ct
well, i'd say bush is considerably worser than clinton.
and that's quite a feat!
from neoliberal slime to neoconservative goon.
way to go, america!
NOT AGAIN, PLEASE.
pretty please with subsidized sugar on top?????
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 1:38pm
<i>solamente una vez.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXYxtZHxCyI&feature=related
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 1:39pm
Let's see there the estimates range from 250,000 to more than a million civilian deaths in Iraq during the time of the sanctions. When asked about those numbers Madeline Al(but)bright said it was worth it. Nice going Dems!
Posted by abell12ct at 05/28/2008 @ 1:43pm
Oh and I got those figures from a story on The Nations web site dated Nov 15th 2001 by David Cortright
Posted by abell12ct at 05/28/2008 @ 1:44pm
Posted by abell12ct at 05/28/2008 |
you are as phony as a three dollar bill.
you are not concerned about Iraqis, you are just looking for a rhetorical club to strike dems with.
this is nothing but the old Clinton did it ruse. no sale.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 1:48pm
You aren't concerned about Iraqis either. You just like to use them and want to kill more of them by pulling out. Shame on you you little boy.
Posted by abell12ct at 05/28/2008 @ 1:55pm
Posted by abell12ct at 05/28/2008 |
I am a man. what are you? a mouth piece nothing more.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 1:58pm
Wow... HAPPY is still delusional, I see.
Greetings all. Hope life is finding you well.
Just wanted to drop in and say hi.
Posted by jorcheim at 05/28/2008 @ 2:00pm
sera un'avventura, oh yeah!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:01pm
clinton/gore did very much damage to the pueblo of iraq.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:02pm
Posted by abell12ct at 05/28/2008
Interesting, huh?
Now that Bush is collapsing, abell has MIRACULOUSLY turned into a cynic with his "They're ALL equally bad" talk....
appendiced with of course talk about Bill Clinton, not so much George Bush!
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by jorcheim at 05/28/2008
Good to see you, JORCH....come back soon.
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 2:04pm
Posted by abell12ct at 05/28/2008
"You aren't concerned about Iraqis either. You just like to use them and want to kill more of them by pulling out. Shame on you you little boy."
In time, the mask of rhetorical speech is removed and the espouser is seen for what he or she is truly capable of- two dimensional powers of perception.
Posted by kevnbro at 05/28/2008 @ 2:10pm
Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008
Why do you call him a half-breed? Does it make you less of a human being if you aren't entirely one race? Maybe since he isn't entirely white you consider him to be not as good as you? Hmm. Your liberal use of the term "half-breed" makes me wonder about your racial attitude. Don't forget though. Blade was a half-breed and he had all of their strengths and none of their weaknesses.
I'm just curious because I am one of the mixed bloods you speak of.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:17pm
I should actually say:
I'm just curious because I am one of the mixed bloods you speak so derogatorily of.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:18pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008
how can you take this creep seriously?
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 2:19pm
Bill Clinton lied about about oral sex and was impeached. George Bush and Dick Cheney lied in order to go to war which has led to thousands of dead Americans and what happened to them? They got re-elected! Everyone who voted for Bush/Cheney the second time around when it was known that they lied about the reasons for going to war has the blood of thousands of Americans on their hands! Maybe the third time around they'll learn from their mistakes and get it right.
Posted by danconstan at 05/28/2008 @ 2:21pm
You silly Marxists Lib fools
Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008
Aside from your name, that phrase automatically invalidates everything that flows forth from your mind. Any idiot knows not all liberals are Communist, Marxist or Socialist. I contend that you are more Communist than I am because you commit corporate welfare instead of social welfare which is basically the same thing just for the top 10% instead of the bottom 10% which in the end is even more hurtful because the top 10% asks for a lot more than the bottom 10%
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:21pm
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008
I don't take him seriously I just like to pick him apart because I know he is an idiot who takes himself seriously but has no idea he is a flaming idiot. So I like to just show him every once in a while how little credibility he actually has.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:22pm
Allow me the introductions....
Benchrest....real world
real world....Benchrest.
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008
Why do I get the feeling this is along the lines of Crush introducing his kids to Marlin.
Jellyman....Offspring
Offspring....Jellyman.
sweeeeeeett!
Posted by Benchrest at 05/28/2008 @ 2:30pm
CAN WE SAY "THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR IN us HISTORY THAT HASN'T ACCOMPLISHED A DAMN THING IN HIS LIFE AND IS WHOLY UNQUALIFIED TO EVEN RUN A COMPANY
Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH
Dennis Kucinich. That's the one name I have to say to make sure you look like an idiot. Wow you are a walking, breathing, typing, Human joke.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:31pm
"get crushed in November like the grape he is"
Lol...Obama is beating McCain nationally without even having started campaigning against him...too funny! Even funnier is that the democratic runner-up is also crushing McCain! Hey, Hey, Hey...Good Bye!
The one good thing about idiotic Bush/Cheney supproters is that they elected someone so terrible that this country has turned and will continue to remain democratic for quite some time. As evidence, just take the recent special elections in which the repubs lost seats that they had for decades.
Posted by danconstan at 05/28/2008 @ 2:31pm
SEE HOW IT WORKS???
Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008
Actually I didn't know Cher had a song called Half-Breed. Have you listened to the contents of the song? Maybe she isn't talking about raise ya moron. I don't listen to Cher.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:32pm
Bush was installed in the White House by a right-wing judicial coup d'etat but there was no excuse for keeping him there. We have reaped what we sowed in 2004 and there is no taking back the horrible damage he did. We can only go forward using all the information available to us as a warning and as a guide for not making the same mistake again.
I think Scott McLellan has done a public service, however much self-serving is part of it. He has appropriately dinged the media for sucking up and he has appropriately opened the garbage sluice to show what was missed. No amount of calling McLellan "disgruntled" can erase the memory of Bush peering out the window of a plane flying over New Orleans or the words of the mother he sought to impress by going to war when his father did not when Barbara saw the misery.
He has also made it impossible for John McCain to run even near Bush and forced McCain to re-assess his campaign and its proximity to Bush. Barack Obama has been given a huge, huge boost because he can now screw Bush and McCain to the same wall. It's sort of just. We were screwed by Bush and Cheney.
Posted by midnight04 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:33pm
The problem is that people think war is a game, and the way to solve that problem is not to impeach Cheney or Bush. The way to solve that problem is to require that any war has to be voted for, by the American people via enlistments - starting with the family members of our representatives. If you can't get a majority of Congress to convince a least a member of their family to join the cause, then they have no business voting for it.
Think how excited George Bush would have been to go into Iraq if it were Barbara & Jenna Bush were on the front lines. Or how much political posturing Hillary Clinton would have done if Chelsea Clinton was leading troops into battle.
Christopher Bond, Tim Johnson, Joe Wilson, Duncan Hunter, yes, even John McCain have or had family in the line of fire - but we are talking less than 1 percent of Congress. If people had to back-up their tough talk with some of their own kin, they might be a little less eager to treat it as a game.
Plenty of people, I'm think of you Ponti, assure us that they would be happy to serve, if called. Well, make "the call" part of the authorization, and if you argue for it but can't put your life or anyone in your families life on the line, then you don't support the war - and have no business sending other people's children there to die or be crippled in your place.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/28/2008 @ 2:34pm
SEE HOW IT WORKS???
Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008
If you actually read the lyrics. Which I just looked up on google. However I am starting to doubt you CAN read.
Half-breed, that's all I ever heard Half-breed, how I learned to hate the word Half-breed, she's no good they warned Both sides were against me since the day I was born
That's the chorus. She is talking about the hardships and the derogatory nature of being called a half-breed. But I guess a "genius" (sarcasm since you seem to be completely unable to pick up subtleties) would have already known that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:35pm
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."
Mark Twain
Congratulations libzsuck- you've managed to do it in all caps.
Posted by kevnbro at 05/28/2008 @ 2:35pm
Just wanted to drop in and say hi.
Posted by jorcheim
hey, doodles!
peace be upon you and your house.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:38pm
Happy to see The Nation setting its online free speech bar so low. Let a hundred flowers (and the occasional stinkweed) bloom.
Posted by JFHill at 05/28/2008 @ 2:41pm
Thanks, Scott McClellan. Waiting until the nation has wadded into a pit full of feces and then to yell out, "Hey, you all are wadding in crap!" for a buck, when you could have said something when it would have been useful - i.e. before we got knee deep in it - is an insult. I won't be buying your book. Thank you very much for your "service".
Oh, they told me lies and I unknowingly repeated them. Pull the other leg. It plays jingle bells.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/28/2008 @ 2:42pm
GOD I HOPE YOU MARXISTS INSTALL THIS FOOL AS YOUR NOMINEE...IT WILL BE A LANDSLIDE EQUAL TO YOUR OTHER LOSERS AKA CARTER AND MONDALE
Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Carter had to run against his own failing record and crippling stagflation/recession as well as a ground swell of popularity for the charismatic Reagan (sound familiar?). Mondale had to run against Reagan at the height of his popularity and a booming economy.
Obama will have to run against the Bush legacy of failure, on every conceivable front, and a John McCain (3rd Bush term) that does not excite the Republican base (especially the Neo-Cons and Evangelicals). So how do you propose McCain will get such a commanding landslide victory?
Posted by BizarroRio at 05/28/2008 @ 2:43pm
Benchrest
careful with that realworld fellow.
i've heard he votes republican't.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:43pm
libzsuck
¿¡¿¡¿¡¿¡¿¡half-breed!?!?!?!?!?
let's hear your pedigree, fido.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:45pm
Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008
I can only hope that you are a joke. That you sit at home laughing about the things you say on here as you are just trying to get a rise out of someone. Because i think the existence of someone has obviously stupid as you is proof of the in-existence of intelligent design and therefore the lack of existence of any God to speak of.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:45pm
This IS the administration our forefathers warned us about...
Posted by ttr at 05/28/2008 @ 2:47pm
I don't listen to Cher.
Posted by Cccomfo1
does anybody?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:48pm
Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008
Superior intellect yes. Googling Cher lyrics however is not exactly educating myself. However I know highschoolers that have a superior intellect when compared to yours so it's not much of a feat. Calling Bush a Nazi, which I don't do, is not the same as espousing racism. While yes Nazi has quite a horrible backing to it, most people don't use it the way your uninformed and possibly malformed mind thinks they use it. They don't use it to mean he gassed people or killed millions of people through genocide. Most people use it to mean he is a fascist. With no care for Democracy whatsoever. Which can be argued with the methods he has used to wiggle his way around the Democratic way of doing things. Calling Obama a half-breed on the other is spitting racism which marks you AS a racist. Which means everything you say is equated to nothing more than the BS the KKK and CofCC members your candidate supports. On top of that calling him Barack Osama and other stupid crap like that further invalidates anything you say as anti-Muslim, in support of genocide, bullshit. Which is why I read your posts with a smile on my face because I can only hope for more conservatives like you because if there are enough you's in the world conservatism will die quickly. I think our local conservatives that are rational, Acook, MaryBret, Jom etc. will admit some semblance of embarrassment caused by people like you being the loudest voices in an otherwise intelligent group of people. So keep spouting your racism and genocide loving crap. Your hotair isn't going to fill the Hindenburg that is your party, in fact it is just going to fan the flames.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:54pm
Posted by srjenkins
we need a quaker in the white house!
The Peace Testimony is probably the best known testimony of Friends. The belief that violence is wrong has persisted to this day, and many conscientious objectors, advocates of non-violence and anti-war activists are Friends. Because of their peace testimony, Friends are considered as one of the historic peace churches. In 1947 Quakerism was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which was accepted by the American Friends Service Committee and British Peace & Social Witness on behalf of all Friends. The Peace Testimony has not always been well received in the world; on many occasions Friends have been imprisoned for refusing to serve in military activities - many conscientious objectors have been Quakers.
In America, others pay into an escrow account in the name of the Internal Revenue Service, which the IRS can only access if they give an assurance that the money will only be used for peaceful purposes. Some Yearly meetings in the US run escrow accounts for conscientious objectors, both within and outside the Society.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:55pm
does anybody?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008
I thought it was popular amongst the homosexual community. I only have one lesbian friend and one gay friend and neither of them are atypical so I can't be sure.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:55pm
"I will continue to insult B.O. just like you anti-american assholes have called Bush a Nazi for the past 8 years... "
This kind of school-yard tit-for-tat is to be expected from developmental challanged mental midgets such as yourself.
But, hey, do whatever you need to do to distract yourself from the train-wreck that is the Bush Administration and The Republican Party.
Bring up ancient history (Clinton), the wife of a mere candidate of the other party, or, better yet, even call that candidate a terrorist or a muslim - it will not change the fact that the Bush Presidency is an utter failure and that The Republican Party is deservedly headed to a future of irrelevancy on the scrapheap of history.
Posted by Balrog at 05/28/2008 @ 2:56pm
Let a hundred flowers (and the occasional stinkweed) bloom.
Posted by JFHill
an angiosperm by any other name.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:58pm
This IS the administration our forefathers warned us about...
Posted by ttr at 05/28/2008
This administration is the reason our Fore Fathers set up the system of checks and balances. Which they would have been a little more obsessed about their obsession with corruption, they might have been a little more thorough in their checks and balances.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:59pm
"Propaganda"
the key word of the Bush administration.
And all of the followers here bought it, while accusing the no-war folk of eating "lefty propaganda".
Bite me mongers!
Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2008 @ 3:10pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008
The U.S. has had a Quaker in the White House. Unfortunately, his name was Richard Nixon.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/28/2008 @ 3:18pm
Honestly, I don't know why you guys feed the troll calling himself LIBSZUK.
Do you expect he cares about your retorts...or just laughs at "how I got a rise out of those Commie libs today. Another victory for me to mark on my calender...right after scoring Jeri Ryan's autograph at the ST Convention"?
Put him on Ignore. There's nothing to be learned from him...and nothing he'd learn from you.
Even ol' RIO BRAVO could form coherent sentences and some paragraph structure.
BTW, if you must...just wait until after January 20th when Obama gets sworn in and then tell him he's "attacking the Commander-in-Chief in wartime...you hate the troops and want America to fail to regain your power".
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 3:22pm
Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008
Did your hand slip off and hit you in the forehead again?
Instead of lotion, try superglue next time. Those forehead bruises are starting to look like self-abuse.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/28/2008 @ 3:23pm
Learn something new everyday - apparently Hoover was also a Quaker.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/28/2008 @ 3:27pm
LIBSUX=propaganda eater, spoon fed fear monger lost in the past.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2008 @ 3:28pm
Unfortunately, his name was Richard Nixon.
Posted by srjenkins
egad!
the u.s. needs a frosty in the white house!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 3:31pm
srj, here's one for you:
Daisey Douglas Barr
Daisy Douglas Barr was Imperial Empress (leader) of the Indiana Women's Ku Klux Klan (WKKK) in the early 1920s and an active member of the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). Professionally, she was a Quaker minister in two prominent churches.
However, in 1924, the Klan charged that Rev. Barr "had amassed a fortune off the dues of Klansmen." Two years later, she was replaced in her leadership position in the WKKK by Lillian Sedwick who was a state official in the WCTU.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
an embezzling quaker clanswoman.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 3:35pm
"FRANGRITS IS CORRECT WHEN HE STATES "MASK" IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE NATION MAGAZINE.....HIS MAIN FUNCTION IS TO STORE ALL POSTS AND PROVOKE ONE SIDE AGAINST THE OTHER..."
Good God, but you are a delusional, paranoid ass-tard. Into the ignore bin with you - begone, troll, begone!
Posted by Balrog at 05/28/2008 @ 3:36pm
Which is worse:
an embezzling quaker clanswoman
or
an lying meth-head evangelical?
Posted by Balrog at 05/28/2008 @ 3:38pm
jorge luis borges, a quaker, too.
El Instante
Dónde estarán los siglos, dónde el sueño de espadas que los tártaros soñaron, dónde los fuertes muros que allanaron, dónde el Árbol de Adán y el otro Leño? El presente está solo. La memoria erige el tiempo. Sucesión y engaño es la rutina del reloj. El año no es menos vano que la vana historia. Entre el alba y la noche hay un abismo de agonías, de luces, de cuidados; el rostro que se mira en los gastados espejos de la noche no es el mismo. El hoy fugaz es tenue y es eterno; otro Cielo no esperes, ni otro Infierno.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 3:42pm
Posted by LibsWarnedU
Posted by libzsuck
let the fray begin!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 3:45pm
Posted by LibsWarnedU
Posted by libzsuck
let the fray begin!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008
Actually, they should date. It would probably work too. Like Carlin and Madelin. Between the two of them, they would probably have typical children.
THAT would take up their spare time!
Posted by Benchrest at 05/28/2008 @ 4:03pm
libswarnedumightsuk
if you buy the propaganda from Chimpco
foolish nationalists!!
too bad they dragged 250 million people down the drain with them, along with several other fiascos they call "democracy projects" or something like that.
god, if it were not such a waste of human life and money it would be funny.
but it almost makes me want to cry. morons. dangerous fools. useful idiots. sheep.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2008 @ 4:04pm
"useful idiots"
What's useful about them? Other than killing off The Republican party?
Posted by Balrog at 05/28/2008 @ 4:17pm
Posted by LibsWarnedU at 05/28/2008
You really should go out with Libzsuck. Just think of all the fun you could have training him. He would be a whipped puppy when you got through with him.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/28/2008 @ 4:25pm
Its foolish the attention this guy is getting. The whole world was on the streets, protesting, thousands of people consistently dying, ask those widows, sisters, and children what happens if the male member dies due to somebody's EGO! They were after saving their FACE, only. A billion dollars will not compensate for the lose of life of one loved one!
To be fair to one and all, somehow get these jokers like Bush the bad and Chenny the ugly into the frying pan, and sentance them to 15 years rigorious imprisonment. That would be the real democracy what these demons talk about. Why chenny was not remanded into custody when that shooting incident happened, agreed his friend didnt die, but still, as he didnt notify the police after the shooting incident. Fu.....k A.....s! Why should such a great nation have double standards? Life would be so easy if plain honesty prevails in higher offices. I wish they experience massive heart attacks, both of them, chenny and bush for being responsible of over 700,000 deaths.
Posted by aleemsyed at 05/28/2008 @ 4:32pm
Posted by Balrog at 05/28/2008
FRANK will be overjoyed to know that now he and the SZUK are now allies.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 4:36pm
I guess what The Nation website appears to be is one big recycling machine - for liberals to keep rehasing the same stuff over and over and over and over again.
Just about everything imaginable appears in the posts above. Stuff we have heard before and will endlessly hear again. The so-called lies, stolen elections, unnecessary wars, "crimes", etc etc etc.
Just about everybody in office in the U.S - even before George W. Bush was president, and many in foreign countries as well, cited Saddam as a threat. And we have things like the recent Pentagon report (at a time where the surface has only barely been scratched as far as reviewing left over documentation from Saddam's regime) that show clearly what a threat Saddam was and what a troublemaker he was aspiring to be.
But because no WMD were found when we went into Iraq (and we do not know and maybe never will know what happened to stuff known to exist) and because unfortunately the Iraq war has become drawn out in what will be a very long battle (even once Iraq is resolved) against enemies who want to kill us, it is proclaimed that George W. Bush lied. And it is proclaimed that the war was unnecessary - by people that have never offered any credible solution of their own on how the situation should be dealt with.
There is glee on this website because libs here think they have "the goods" on President Bush and Vice President Cheney, libs who yearn for the day when they are "frog-marched" out of the White House. (The yearning that was never fulfilled when Karl Rove never did get "frog-marched".)
Someone who was in the administration now comes out with a book that is totally believed, hook line and sinker, by libs because it fits their pre-determined template to begin with. No concept by the libs whether any of it is true or not or what circumstances have driven the publishing of the book.
Richard Clarke was a counterterrorism chief who wrote a book promoting himself as almost a super hero in the White House warning everybody about terror threats, but Louis Freeh, who was FBI director, has a book out that says the stuff Richard Clark proclaims occurred in fact never happened.
So just because somebody declares something in a book, then libs automatically believe it if it is negative about George W. Bush.
I guess the way it works in liberal land is that if somebody says things in the public domain libs agree with, then that is "Truth" and it is "Proof" of guilt in crimes libs (acting as police, judge, jury and executioner) declare those they oppose have committed.
But if somebody says things in public libs don't agree with, then that is declared "lies" and "propaganda"
Posted by sjchermak at 05/28/2008 @ 4:41pm
Do not be fooled. This war was about oil and power.
McClellan writes that this war was un-necessary. That implies that WMD was the real reason that we went to war. It was not. It never was. That was just a front, because even most of the neo-cons knew that 'They have our oil', while the honest reason in their minds, was immoral.
For those who were and are still willing to see the truth - the US invaded a weaker nation because they had something that we wanted - we see that McClellan is still not being completely honest either with the public or with himself.
If this war had been a 'success'; If Bush was not completely incompetent; If Mission Accomplished had actually been just that and the war had ended then, It would still be immoral.
We should not let Bush and the neo-cons off the hook with the war only being a strategic failure. Even more important, we should remind the world that this war was a moral failure.
The MSM media and the American people should not only have been outraged when the war persisted longer than we expected. We ALL should have been outraged, at the beginning, when we allowed our leaders to invade another country so that we could have access to their oil, their money, their power.
Do not let history re-write this war as a strategic failure. We were lied to from the beginning. It was never about security or WMD. They had something we wanted and we were willing to kill people to get it. That fact, that fact alone, should be the source of our rage.
Posted by jbfromBigD at 05/28/2008 @ 4:46pm
Posted by sjchermak
hahahahaha.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 4:48pm
sjchermak
funny thing.
i knew it was your post after one sentence.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:50pm
that's because he's a shill, nothing more.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 4:52pm
" The Bush administration has arrogated powers to itself that the British people even refused to grant King George III at the time of the Revolutionary War, an eminent political scientist says.
"No executive in the history of the Anglo-American world since the Civil War in England in the 17th century has laid claim to such broad power," said David Adler, a prolific author of articles on the U.S. Constitution. "George Bush has exceeded the claims of Oliver Cromwell who anointed himself Lord Protector of England."
Adler said, Bush has "claimed the authority to suspend the Geneva Convention, to terminate treaties, to seize American citizens from the streets to detain them indefinitely without benefit of legal counseling, without benefit of judicial review. He has ordered a domestic surveillance program which violates the statutory law of the United States as well as the Fourth Amendment." "
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_sherwood_080526_bush_claims_more _pow.htm
Posted by Balrog at 05/28/2008 @ 4:53pm
Posted by Balrog
good one
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 4:58pm
Posted by sjchermak at 05/28/2008
Hmm funny because I can put Republican in almost all of your sentences and it still holds try. Why don't you stop being so biased and admit that both sides do it. You guys are willing to believe every line Bush feeds you. You believed the war would only last a few months. You believed Saddam had WMDs. You believe him when he says he will stimulate the economy into working. Face you are one of the sheep you are complaining about you just have such an inflated ego you can't see it. You think it is only the path of the left. But partisan bullshit aside both sides do it. Look at people like Libzsuckz for proof of that. You guys have people on your side that will both believe that Obama is Muslim AND attended Christian churches for 20 years.
So please. Don't come espousing partisan BS. When someone in your own administration says that he told lies that he was forced to tell. When multiple members of the administration and people who they colluded with in Britain are saying this war is a sham. Then it might just be a sham and maybe you should start thinking for yourself instead of believing the White House press line just because the President is Republican. Even your current Presidential Nominee was at odds with your current President before he needed the Christian Right. If EVERYONE is saying it maybe it should be investigated. I'm not saying it's true but it should be investigated.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 4:59pm
Read, if you can find it before the thought-police remove it from book stores and libraries, a book by Justin Frank called "Bush on the Couch." Nothing revealed by McClellan or anybody else - there have been a lot of them - will surprise you about Mr. Bush's behavior these last 7 years.
Of course, we're closing the barn door after our wealth, health, and dignity have long since flown the coop.
Posted by felicity at 05/28/2008 @ 5:00pm
This, and other "what we said earlier was false"-type exposees perhaps to come, marks the most dangerous time in American, perhaps global history.
It documents and irrefutably confirms for all time exactly what those of us who were onto their WHIG games all along were saying -- back through Ari Fleisher (Jew) times, and his "for the price of one bullet" line that preceeded the DC sniper shooting in '02.
Here is what is reptilian about it. A. NOW (time tn), he says that what he said THEN (time m), was false (about having a plan for post-invasion Iraq, for instance). OK. but B. TiVo clips show that at tm he was ALSO BLAMING DEMOCRATS FOR FALSE ACCUSATIONS. That is, he not only lied, knowingly, but knowingly twisted public opinion with false accusations, himself.
He -- they -- cannot be let off from criminal charges without
-nullifying the efforts all of us have made, throughout, to expose what he has said and get it related to as the reality
-tacitly sanctioning fake-hate/false-flag operations to instigate atrocities for profit, and blame for weak sister dems for not stoping them.
McClellan actually accuses the "liberal media" of "failing" to do its job -- fair and balanced dogpile crap that he is. I remember one NYPost headline about FBI phone taps on Vietnam war protestors in the 60's: "THE PARANOIDS WERE RIGHT" -- exposing the practice as fact.
-McClellan's piece, now, shows the perpetuation of Reagan Contra satanism. The rules on the brim of their hats and Tee shirts were: DENY EVERYTHING ... EXPLAIN NOTHING ... BLAME THE ACCUSER
That's how they operated the death squads, and that is how he operated Press conferences.
This falls under the category of Reichstag Fire fraud exposure: it will have to be either faced up or and dealt with, or be accepted as historical precedent.
I vote for the latter. And nothing goes without saying anymore.
If the truth of what really happened on 911 and the anthrax poisoning would just come out noe...Where's Deepthroat -- or would that be Deepanus -- when we need him? (Its always sex that takes the satanic snake brain hit when they get exposed, but more of that later.)
Posted by jones at 05/28/2008 @ 5:18pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 |
good one, but McLellan wasn't exactly forced to tell those whoppers.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 5:25pm
CAN YOU SAY "IRRELEVANT DISTRACTIONS"
I CAN SAY "IMMORAL WAR"
I CAN SAY "IMMORAL TAX POLICY"
I CAN SAY "IMMORAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY"
I CAN SAY "IMMORAL ENERGY POLICY"
Posted by jbfromBigD at 05/28/2008 @ 5:26pm
Posted by Euler
nothing could be further from the truth. we have a repug candidate who is Bush 3.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 5:27pm
Last paragraph-but-one should read: I vote for the former. What is exposed cannot be accepted as precedent. Collective punitive action is required by law. I know, without being able to cite it.
Posted by jones at 05/28/2008 @ 5:30pm
Posted by sjchermak at 05/28/2008
I guess the way it works in neo-con Land is this
They let the admin "create their own reality"
they let their admin use federal tax dollars to spread propaganda.
They go to war because they think they should be afraid, because they bought the propaganda they paid for.
the "war" is on it's 6th year, but it is only a "drawn out battle " against "people that want to kill us", when those "people" actually were not in Iraq.
WMDs not found but "we still don;t know what happened to them", because you bought the propaganda. Those wmd's were ALL destroyed in 1993. How do I know this? The head of the wmd program told UNCOM, who told the US.
Too many insiders have come forward and told us exactly what went down, which was that Chimpy McFlightsuit wanted war. He could not make the case with facts, so he dug up some "facts" from drunks, convicted felons, outdated "evidence", forged documents and cherry picked quotes from Hussein Kamal. He then used PROPAGANDA, a republicans words, not just mine, to scare the living shit out of cowards like you and HAPPY.
then, they outed a covert CIA agent, went after her husband (both formerly republicans). They lied about Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman. They lied about the costs, they lied about contract letting, they enriched their friends, family and cronies. They ignored the advice of career diplomats and military officials while spouting such nonsense as "listen to the troops".
they came up with jingoes like "support the troops" while slashing vet benefits, extending tours, ignoring endemic problems in the VA, sent soldiers into combat without the proper equipment.
they ignored any advice that contradicted the "reality" they wanted to create. Not my words, a republicans words.
now, SJ, if you can show me that 5 1/2 years into this "war" that we have removed wmd threats from the world and/or established a functioning democracy in the ME, then I might listen to you. But you cannot. If you could show me how attacking Iraq protected us from AQ, I might listen to you. But all you will say is "we have not been attacked", while ignoring the 4000 dead Americans and the DAILY attacks on US troops, embassies and bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, then I might listen to you. But, you cannot.
So, what you are left with is the warmed over propaganda from the Chimpy McFlighsuit admin.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2008 @ 5:38pm
Propaganda from the Bush admin:
Armstrong Williams
Retired "military analysts"
Daily briefings from behind the podium marked "White house".
Folks like SJ and others around here will not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES admit that they were duped.
no wmd's? Oh, gee, they must be in Syria, they must be buried, "we will never know what happened to them"
Or, they were not there. Why make up stuff when the most basic answer is the obvious answer.
Is it "old news" to discuss why 4000 + americans have died in a failed attemp to rid the world of non-existant wmd's ? I don't think so.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2008 @ 5:45pm
we made it a lot easier to kill Americans, by sending them over there. cheaper too, for them, not for us though.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 5:46pm
great post, crabwalk.
I'm saving it.
-jones
Posted by jones at 05/28/2008 @ 5:52pm
Hello Cccomfo1
Why am I getting the comment back "So please. Don't come espousing partisan BS."
Haven't we been through this before (that I am not just parroting back talking points, etc) recently in one of the other blogs?
You say above "Then it might just be a sham and maybe you should start thinking for yourself instead of believing the White House press line just because the President is Republican."
What about what Mayor Ed Koch has to say?
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/bush_is_one_of_the
I think Mayor Koch is right. It seems to me he is not Republican. So it may not be true after all that I believe people "because they are Republican"
You also say "Even your current Presidential Nominee was at odds with your current President before he needed the Christian Right."
MY current Presidential Nominee was at odds with MY current President? NO KIDDING! Like you are telling me something I do not already know!!
The "Your current President" part I accept and think is good, but don't rub it in about the "Your current Presidential nominee" stuff!
There are three liberals running for President this year, two of them Democrat, one of them RINO (Republican in name only). I have no choice but to vote for the RINO candidate only because I do not believe in capitulation and surrender in Iraq, and at least the RINO candidate will not surrender in Iraq. (Altough one of the Democrat candidates said something I did like, when asked what she would do if Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, Hillary Clinton said basically there would be no more Iran! It would be gone! - Barack Obama on the other hand said stuff that would make Jimmy Carter (and probably the Iranians, too) proud)
"Your current Presidential nominee" ?
Since at the polling place this year during the primary I made the remark out loud that if anybody hasn't voted yet, please vote for Mitt Romney (which is probably illegal for me to have done so - campaigning at a polling place!) please do not rub it in with the "Your current Presidential nominee" stuff!
Posted by sjchermak at 05/28/2008 @ 5:56pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008
Anytime I hear Quaker minister, I reach for my rifle - metaphorically speaking that is. =) One of the reasons I decided to become an unprogrammed Quaker was because it was one of the few religions that didn't have a minister. Nothing cuts through authoritarianism like not having a head.
Evangelical Quakers have ministers. I understand the reasons behind specialization on what not, I just don't think ministers are worth their price - in bad ideas, in bad behavior, etc.
Cause in point, I believe LVL said he had some connection to Quakers when I first started talking to him. I'm guessing he put less emphasis on the peace testimony.
Quakers have their flaws, as I frequently demonstrate for everyone to see here. Yet, the ideas of peace, integrity, equality and simplicity that are at the heart of the Quaker understanding of the Christian religion.
Posted by Euler at 05/28/2008
Who says people like Democrats any better?
Can you tell me who has a different policy in respect to using military against Iran? Can you tell me what the policy is when the differences extend to who will, or will not, speak to the Iran's leadership?
Who's for immediate withdrawal from Iraq?
Who's for eliminating long term bases in Iraq?
Who's arguing for more limited government?
Who's arguing for universal health care?
Who's arguing for the abolition of the death penalty?
Who's arguing for same-sex marriage?
Who's arguing for decriminalization and amnesty for non-violent drug offenses?
Who's for ratifying Kyoto?
Who's for providing commodity backed alternative curriencies?
Who's for eliminating the Presidential usurpion of Congressional powers in negotiating so called "free trade agreements"?
Who's for cutting down military spending to levels comparable to other industrialized nations?
Who advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy?
The answer to practically all of these questions, is neither of the major parties.
So, please spare me those lame ass "you hate Bush arguments". Fine for when you are listening to Rush and can't form your own thoughts - but don't offer up that tripe here.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/28/2008 @ 6:04pm
Hello crabwalk,
You proclaimed above while commenting on my postings "WMDs not found but "we still don't know what happened to them", because you bought the propaganda. Those wmd's were ALL destroyed in 1993. How do I know this? The head of the wmd program told UNCOM, who told the US. "
That is fascinating. Problem is, I remember that every now and then, during the 90's (which includes time after 1993) that the Nightly News reports on NBC or the reports on the CBS Evening News, or shows on ABC World News Tonight, would have a story about the inspectors finding some WMD in Iraq. (despite every effort Saddam was making to impede them)
To repeat: the network news, during the 90's (when George W. Bush was not yet President) reported every now and then that WMD were found.
So, the WMD were NOT ALL destroyed in 1993.
Once again, the WMD were NOT ALL destroyed in 1993.
Posted by sjchermak at 05/28/2008 @ 6:20pm
Since at the polling place this year during the primary I made the remark out loud that if anybody hasn't voted yet, please vote for Mitt Romney (which is probably illegal for me to have done so - campaigning at a polling place!) please do not rub it in with the "Your current Presidential nominee" stuff!
Posted by sjchermak at 05/28/2008
I didn't mean to rub it in, and yes that is more than likely illegal.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 6:34pm
<i>Altough one of the Democrat candidates said something I did like, when asked what she would do if Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, Hillary Clinton said basically there would be no more Iran! It would be gone!
Posted by sjchermak at 05/28/2008 </i>
I think this excerpt is interesting, because it's always been frustrating to me. So many people have said, as a result of Clinton's statement here, "man, that Clinton is such a warmonger!" What they seem to keep forgetting is the clause in the hypothetical "if Iran ATTACKS ISRAEL WITH A NUCLEAR WEAPON." Precisely what alternative would critics suggest? Some level of conventional strike? Quiet negotiations? Remember that we're dealing with the first time in history that a nuclear weapon would EVER have been used in a flatly unprovoked assault. How does our nuclear umbrella mean anything if if our deterrent lacks any credibility whatsoever?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/28/2008 @ 6:37pm
There have been a plethora of requests from 'pubs for Dems & Liberals to go to Iraq, accompanied or otherwise, & witness the success of the surge. Most want souvenirs. Suggest that Iraqi merchants erect bunkers away from the bazaar & equip them with vending machines. This would allow protection from reprisals after said guests depart. Or.. is there a bazaar in the Green Zone?
Posted by Sorelish at 05/28/2008 @ 6:44pm
ed Koch is an old fool. no one here in NYC pays the slightest attention to him. he is a dem in name only.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 6:49pm
libzsuck ...you suck
Posted by jones at 05/28/2008 @ 7:10pm
No one has mentioned how HELEN THOMAS fought with the press secretaries when this war started.............
She was the ONLY person asking the hard questions..... The News people told her to sit down and BE QUIET.... In fact Dana Perino did it just a couple of weeks ago....
HELEN THOMAS tried....... the rest of us sat with our brains shut down and listened like little children....
Than YOu Scott for FINALLY having the nerve to SPEAK UP!
Posted by pasnell at 05/28/2008 @ 7:13pm
Helen Thomas was treated abysmally by these two bit shills.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 7:31pm
Come on, come on. People were screaming at the top of their lungs about this stupid arrogant war. Let's name a few; Scott Ritter, Peter Stark, Ambassador Wilson, The Security Council. We were all to busy debating French Fries and French Toast. We have become a stupid country with nuclear weapons and a stupid administration that has its finger on the nuclear trigger.
We have a chance at redemption with Senator Obama, but because of the pro choice issue we are going to elect an old war hero turned idiot and continue down the path of self destruction.
I'm not a pacifist I'm just against stupid.
Posted by julien38 at 05/28/2008 @ 7:36pm
Posted by julien38
the American people will NOT elect McSame. notachance.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 7:41pm
modest too...glad someone thinks so....I haven't seen much evidence so far....Keep trying fool
Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008
I see you chose to omit the second part of my statement. The part where I said even a highschooler has a superior intellect to you. Maybe you should try reading instead of spinning fool.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 7:42pm
IF YOUR AGAINST STUPID...WHY ARE YOU A LIB????
Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008
Ahh the irony in a mental midget calling ANYONE stupid.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 7:45pm
Huzzah! Libzsuck is on my ignore list!
I'd still rather punch him in the face, but this will have to do.
Posted by madlib at 05/28/2008 @ 7:46pm
At least LVLIB doesn't type in caps.
Posted by madlib at 05/28/2008 @ 7:50pm
BTW, this is the Right Wing spin on McClellan....you get to choose one of 4 or combinations or all 4...
1. "He's a liar." (but he "told the truth" when he was taking orders from Bush)
2. "He's only in it for the money." (which requires a right-winger to explain why making money...makes you dishonest!)
3. "He's a disgruntled employee" (which requires explaining this...
Thursday, April 20, 2006
By Jane Roh FOX NEWS
"Bush said McClellan had performed a "job well done," and the two touched on their long relationship predating the presidency.
"I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity," the president said. "It's going to be hard to replace Scott, but nevertheless he made the decision and I accepted it. One of these days, he and I are going to be rocking in chairs in Texas and talking about the good old days."
(my fave) 4. "He was always a liberal" (which requires you to believe ...well....idiocy beyond belief!....heheh)
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 8:04pm
If found guilty, their punishment is prescribed: they may never again hold a position of public trust.
Sloper, I don't think this is true. what happens in a successful impeachment is that the guilty person loses their position.
there is nothing to prevent them from seeking and attaining another political office.
other than public opinion of the voters.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 |
Alcee Hastings being the first example that comes to mind - impeached as a federal judge, now a US Rep from Georgia, I believe
Posted by skeletonman at 05/28/2008 @ 8:04pm
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." --Abraham Lincoln, speech to the Young Mens Lyceum of Springfield, Il, Jan., 1838
Posted by Balrog at 05/28/2008 @ 8:06pm
Alcee Hastings is a rep from FL. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. (Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.)
It's up to the Senate, to prosecute, try &, if the accused is found guilty by the senate, determine what the punishment will be. The choice of punishment is not limited to removal from office, but may include banning from fture office as well.
Posted by sloper at 05/28/2008 @ 8:24pm
SUCH A TOUGH LIB BEHIND HIS KEYBOARD....GOTTA BE IMPRESSED
Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008
This is funny from a person who espouses bullshit constantly in all capitals. Oh no big tough idiot with his caps locks key.
"That's the distance you'd have to move your pinky in order to not sound like an idiot. I know the burden of pressing shift to capitalize is a great one, but c'mon Turing, you can do better than that. I used to type emails in caps like yours, but then I decided that I didn't want a job mixing concrete."
That's a quote from maddox.xmission.com in his hate mail section to some idiot who typed him hate mail in all caps. You should listen.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 8:34pm
Hello sloper,
Question- How much did attorney William Borders donate to the Clinton library in exchange for his pardon?
I don't know - that's why I'm asking you - but it seems that donating to the library was the most common fee charged for pardons Clinton gave out during the fire sale he held his last days in office. I guess he was like a man possessed in those days, busy trying to think of who else he could sell pardons to.
I guess that does have a good side, though - that kept him occupied and away from allowing his buddy contributor CEO at Loral Space to sell more missile technology to the Communist Chinese!
When you look at it, doodling with the interns doesn't look so bad after all. I wish now Bill Clinton had done nothing but doodle with the interns all day for eight years, maybe we would have come out of his presidency better off!
Of course, what comes next is all the same bloggers on this site who crucify President Bush day after day will take me to task for saying negative remarks about Bill Clinton.
Posted by sjchermak at 05/28/2008 @ 8:58pm
OK..... Any One who ends thier posts with 'the Great Ann Coulter' (lol, sad really, in a totally brainwashed/cromagnum sense) Immediately goes to the IGNORE list... These posts really should stay on topic... Mclellan spills the beans..
Not hard to believe.. Has anyone believed ONE Bush Admin Press Sec..?? have they ever told the truth ..?? really..??
Libzsuck... Its ok lil guy... sittin around the doublewide (i did write 'your doublewide, but know you dont own anything)... wrapped in the CBRD kit they sold at Home depot(whats the terror alert color on FOX today), Ollie North poster up, your 'Boycott the Dixie chix' heavy cotton t on... Face Full of 'Freedom fries'... Radio welded to the AM dial....
you and your ILK are such sad examples of the human race(please understand that) ... Its people like you (and Ms. Coulter) that make abortion so attractive... no need to retort (look it up) ... you've been IGNORED...
Posted by Vvf1969 at 05/28/2008 @ 9:11pm
[So, the WMD were NOT ALL destroyed in 1993.
Once again, the WMD were NOT ALL destroyed in 1993.
Posted by sjchermak at 05/28/2008]
WIKI:
["Kamel maintained that Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction and related programs after the end of the first Gulf War. "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons--biological, chemical, missile, nuclear--were destroyed." [2] Britain's Foreign Office has stated that they disbelieved this claim, while a March 3, 2003 Newsweek report said that Kamel's revelations were "hushed up" because inspectors "hoped to bluff Saddam [Hussein] into revealing still more." [3] Kamel's version of events appear to have been borne out in the wake of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq."
(wish I had BOLD here, don't have time to libsuk it and put it all in caps)
"....In the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush administration figures--including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell--repeatedly cited Kamel's testimony as evidence that Iraq had produced unconventional weapons, without mentioning that, according to Kamel, all such weapons had been destroyed]"
I call that a piece of propaganda.
UNSCOM destroyed a bio weapons facility in 1996. but, no wmd's have been found in Iraq, save some spent shells. They were not there.
Hussein was non-cooperative in some part due to , here ya go SJ... to Bill Clintons mishandling of the CIA and inability to out game Hussein in the international arena. Clinton cannot be absolved, but neither should he be used as a cheap foil to Chimpies malfeasance and ineptitude's. Your histories of Clinton misdeeds is even more rich when taken with your earlier claim that this thread is just more liberal whining about ancient history.
"There is simply no doubt Iraq has reconstituted it's nuclear programs", Cheney, is propaganda. It was NOT TRUE.
The "generals" appearing on "liberal media" were mouthpieces for the gubment.
you bought it all.
I bet you went around for weeks soaking in the glory of Private Lynch's heroic gunfight to the end. How she emptied her clip in a desperate attempt to avoid capture. How she was rescued from the clutches of the Republican Guard.
You bought propaganda.
I bet you wept when you heard how Pat Tillman went down under fire from the Taliban. I bet you closed your ears when it came out they lied about the whole thing. They used him.
you bought propaganda
I bet you think all 450 detainees at GITMO were "the most dangerous, the most vicious." Half of them have been let go. 7 returned to "the battlefield", maybe. Of course the "battlefield is The Earth under Chimpies newfound powers of Unitary Executive.
You bought propaganda
BOO!
Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2008 @ 9:28pm