Scott McClellan: BUSH LIED

[boutons_]

...

[Chris Duel]

Yeah.

A guy with a front row seat to an Administration that lied us into a bogus war and cost the lives of 4,100 American heroes and 500,000 innocent Iraqi civilians while Osama bin Laden chills in Afghanistan should be discredited by all means necessary.

Go get him, Karl Rove!

Go back to sleep, America.

[spursfor5]

Bush lied? Really? I would never expect that from a politician, especially W.

[Yonivore]

Yeah.

A guy with a front row seat to an Administration that lied us into a bogus war and cost the lives of 4,100 American heroes and 500,000 innocent Iraqi civilians while Osama bin Laden chills in Afghanistan should be discredited by all means necessary.

Go get him, Karl Rove!

Go back to sleep, America.
WTF Duel? You slummin'? I thought you had your own sewer of a forum in which to wallow.

Anyway, let's hope this comes to fruition...

Wexler: McClellan Must Testify Under Oath Before House Judiciary Committee (http://wexler.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl19_wexler/050808_mcclellanpressrelease.shtml)

I'm betting Scottie wasn't planning on actually having to defend his statements under oath.

[Yonivore]

bet he was
Yeah, I'm sure he has reams of witnesses and evidence to back up his tabloidesque assertions.

The guy's going to be ripped to shreds.

[boutons_]

McClellan confirms what the 7 years of evidence observable by everybody not in the dubya Exec has seen:

dubya and his accoplices all lied,
Iraq was always and overwhelmingly primarily about oil and M/E oil hegemony,
NEVER about GWOT,
never about removing Saddam.

[ChumpDumper]

WTF Duel? You slummin'? I thought you had your own sewer of a forum in which to wallow.

Anyway, let's hope this comes to fruition...

Wexler: McClellan Must Testify Under Oath Before House Judiciary Committee (http://wexler.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl19_wexler/050808_mcclellanpressrelease.shtml)

I'm betting Scottie wasn't planning on actually having to defend his statements under oath.This isn't much of a problem for McClellan since he isn't the target of the investigation. Hell, he could probably get an immunity deal from the Democrats before he takes any oath.

[Nbadan]

Let's get Dubya, Cheney Rove and Douglas Feith under oath too....

[Yonivore]

Let's get Dubya, Cheney Rove and Douglas Feith under oath too....
I think Feith's been under oath, before Congress, on at least one occasion.

But, hey, McClellan made this bed, he can sleep in it. Should be real entertaining.

[clambake]

all they have to do is refer back to powells acknowledgement about the administration deliberately misleading the country into war.

he wasn't on the other side of the door, and i think he wants to make it up to us.

[Yonivore]

all they have to do is refer back to powells acknowledgement about the administration deliberately misleading the country into war.

he wasn't on the other side of the door, and i think he wants to make it up to us.
When and where, exactly, did Powell "...the administration deliberately misleading the country into war..."?

[clambake]

yeah, we were all shocked to hear him admit it, but i think he'd like to make it up to us.

just like when he told bush "you have to look at the wolf thats eating you" and part of the wolf IS bush.

[Yonivore]

yeah, we were all shocked to hear him admit it, but i think he'd like to make it up to us.

just like when he told bush "you have to look at the wolf thats eating you" and part of the wolf IS bush.
So, you can point to the quote where Powell said this?

[balli]

Yeah, I'm sure he has reams of witnesses and evidence to back up his tabloidesque assertions.

The guy's going to be ripped to shreds.

You're right about that. I just don't think it's congress that's going to be doing it.


In response to his scathing memoir detailing the "propaganda"-filled run up to war and seedy political machinations behind the CIA leak case, Scott McClellan has received withering criticism from his former colleagues. A money grubbing, attention seeking, devoid-of-principles hack has been the description of choice; "this is not the Scotty we knew," the most popular quote.

One former Bush aide, however, is sticking up for McClellan, arguing that the former Bush press secretary is "getting savaged for saying what everyone knows to be true."

Mike Turk served as the eCampaign director for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. As such, his tenure corresponded with that of McClellan's. No longer connected to the administration, Turk is now one of the few (if any) voices with connections to that crowd who are saying, quiet simply, that the book "What Happened" is steeped in little more than truth.

"After watching McClellan on Today this morning, I think the reception his book received exemplifies the point he was making," Turk told The Huffington Post in an email. "People had high hopes for President Bush to bring America together after his election and after the attacks on 9/11. They felt disillusioned by the Administration's adoption of the 'win at all costs' partisan mentality in this town. I think the bigger point of Scott's book comes from the lessons he learned while playing a part in the permanent campaign. It's an exploration of how that mindset can lead to some really bad choices."

Indeed, Turk notes, he himself has been on the receiving end of Bush-loyalist scorn. After the campaign and his tenure at the Republican National Committee, Turk criticized the party for not fully embracing technological advances. "As a result I'm already on the watch list for the GOP establishment for some of my own criticisms," he said.

Earlier in the day, Turk left a message defending McClellan on the online service Twitter, which was highlighted by Matt Stoller on the site OpenLeft.

And while he has only seen the major excerpts of the book, Turk predicted that, ultimately, McClellan would be looked at optimistically. He suggested the memoir may stand up better to history than the Bush administration itself.

"While Scott's going to weather a fierce storm for writing it, just as Matt Dowd did with his New York Times piece, I think it ultimately will be regarded as a very personal look into the modern political machinery that so many people are sick of," he said.

[balli]

So, you can point to the quote where Powell said this?

Hasn't explicitly said anything about the UN, but he has said he tried to stop the war before it started.


THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.
“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”

Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”

He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.

[Yonivore]

Hasn't explicitly said anything about the UN, but he has said he tried to stop the war before it started.
I'm looking for a quote where he says the administration deliberately misled us into a war.

Having a policy disagreement with the president is one thing...he was just one of the decision-makers advising the president at the time. That his advice wasn't followed isn't news...happens in all administrations.

Clambake said Powell admitted that the administration deliberately misled the American public in the run up to the war. I'm wondering where he said that.

[balli]

Clambake said Powell admitted that the administration deliberately misled the American public in the run up to the war. I'm wondering where he said that.

He hasn't said it. That would be a condemnation of his own actions and he has the right to remain covered in the slime of a liar if that's what he wants to do with his own legacy.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah, I'm sure he has reams of witnesses and evidence to back up his tabloidesque assertions.

The guy's going to be ripped to shreds.

If he testifies it's all true I suspect you will be apologizing for calling him a liar.

[Yonivore]

You're right about that. I just don't think it's congress that's going to be doing it.

.

An eCampaign director with an apparent axe to grind? Yeah...

Oh, and I notice that he amply supported McClellan's accusations with facts...oh, wait; he didn't.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Let's get Dubya, Cheney Rove and Douglas Feith under oath too....

YES!! Let's get all the players under oath.. That would be yummy!

[Yonivore]

If he testifies it's all true I suspect you will be apologizing for calling him a liar.
Huh? Testifying makes it true?

I'm not calling him a liar, his book makes no definitive statements supported by factual evidence. As far as I can tell it's a bunch of opinions drawn from his observations. That doesn't make him a liar. It could make him wrong.

I hope he brings evidence to his sworn testimony. Otherwise, it remains his opinion.

[balli]

Otherwise, it remains his opinion.

His opinion huh?


Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney- Aug 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. Bush- Sep 12, 2002

The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemmical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. Bush- Oct 7, 2002

Iraq has a growing fllet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that would be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using the UAV's for missions targeting the United States. Bush- Oct 7, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer Jan 9, 2003

Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. Bush Feb. 8, 2003

There is no doubt the iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. Bush March 17, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses wmd's. As this operation continues, those weapons will be id'd, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. Tommy Franks- March 22, 2003

There is no doubt we're going to find big stores of wmd's. Kenneth Adelman- March 23, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad. Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time before we do so. Bush May 3, 2003

I never believed we'd just tumble over WMD's in that country. Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

US officials have never believed that we were going to find weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice, May 12, 2003


And I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and he's clean, he had nothing, I will apologize to the nation and I will not trust the Bush Administration again. Bill O Reilly March 18, 2003

[boutons_]

"no definitive statements supported by factual evidence"

Yoni's ridicules McCluckin for this as just "opinion", but dubya/dickhead didn't/don't have "factual evidence" about their bogus reasons for invading Iraq.

READ MY LIPS: DUBYA LIED

[Yonivore]

His opinion huh?
Yep, his opinion.

You left off a couple of hundred quotes from just about every world leader alive between 1991 and 2003 that were saying the exact same thing as the Bush administration officials you quoted.

[xrayzebra]

When all is said and none, just remember he was a hired hand. Not
a policy maker. And his career went no where after he left his job at
the WH. Now he is loved by all the lefties, well, until they use him up
and then what is he going to do. Back to nothingness.

[balli]

Yep, his opinion.

You left off a couple of hundred quotes from just about every world leader alive between 1991 and 2003 that were saying the exact same thing as the Bush administration officials you quoted.
Yeah, that's why they all lined up to join the fight. Oh wait, it was only Tony Blair and a bunch of island nations.

Of course, you won't have the balls to watch it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/



"A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies," Cheney told Americans just after 9/11. He warned the public that the government would have to operate on the "dark side."

In "The Dark Side," FRONTLINE tells the story of the vice president's role as the chief architect of the war on terror, and his battle with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet for control of the "dark side." Drawing on more than 40 interviews and thousands of documents, the film provides a step-by-step examination of what happened inside the councils of war.

Early in the Bush administration, Cheney placed a group of allies throughout the government who advocated a robust and pre-emptive foreign policy, especially regarding Iraq. But a potential obstacle was Tenet, a holdover from the Clinton administration who had survived the transition by bypassing Cheney and creating a personal bond with the president.

After the attacks on 9/11, Cheney seized the initiative and pushed for expanding presidential power, transforming America's intelligence agencies and bringing the war on terror to Iraq. Cheney's primary ally in this effort was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

"You have this wiring diagram that we all know of about national security, but now there's a new line on it. There's a line from the vice president directly to the secretary of defense, and it's as though there's a private line, private communication between those two," former National Security Council staffer Richard Clarke tells FRONTLINE.

In the initial stages of the war on terror, Tenet's CIA was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with the president that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the agency and Tenet. Through interviews with DoD staffers who sifted through mountains of raw intelligence, FRONTLINE details how questionable intelligence was "stovepiped" to the vice president and presented to the public.

From stories of Iraq buying yellowcake uranium from Niger to claims that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, "The Dark Side" dissects the now-familiar assertions that led the nation to war. The program also receounts the vice president's unprecedented visits to the CIA, where he questioned mid-level analysts on their conclusions. CIA officers who were there at the time say the message was clear: Cheney wanted evidence that Iraq was a threat.

At the center of the administration's case for war was a classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that found evidence of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. But Paul Pillar, one of the report's principal authors, now admits to FRONTLINE that the NIE was written quickly in a highly politicized environment, one in which the decision to go to war had already been made. Pillar also reveals that he regrets participating in writing a subsequent public "white paper" on Iraqi WMD. "What was the purpose of it? The purpose was to strengthen the case for going to war with the American public. Is it proper for the intelligence community to publish papers for that purpose? I don't think so, and I regret having had a role in it," Pillar says.

For the first time, FRONTLINE tells of George Tenet's personal struggle in the run-up to the Iraq war through the accounts of his closest advisers.

"He, I think, asked himself whether or not he wanted to continue on that road and to be part of it. And I think there was a lot of agonizing that George went through about what would be in the best interest of the country and national interest, or whether or not he would stay in that position and continue along a course that I think he had misgivings about," says John Brennan, former deputy executive director of the CIA.

Tenet chose to stay, but after the failure to find Iraqi WMD, the tension between the agency and Cheney's allies grew to the point that some in the administration believed the CIA had launched a covert war to undermine the president. In response, Cheney's office waged a campaign to distance itself from the prewar intelligence the vice president had helped to cultivate. Under pressure, Tenet resigned. Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, would later admit to leaking key sections of the NIE -- authorized, he says, by Cheney. Libby also stated that the vice president told him that President Bush had declassified the material. Insiders tell FRONTLINE that the leak was part of the battle between the vice president and the CIA -- a battle that many believe has destroyed the CIA.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, that's why they all lined up to join the fight. Oh wait, it was only Tony Blair and a bunch of island nations.

Of course, you won't have the balls to watch it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

Again with the non-sequiturs...(And, I've watched the Frontline episode)

Meanwhile back on McClellan's book; he appeared on the Today Show this morning. Scott wanted to talk about bipartisanship while Meredith Vieira desperately prodded him to say something controversial, or, failing that, something specific. The most concrete anti-Bush statements were quoted by Vieira, from McClellan's book, under the headline "Weapons of Mass Destruction:"


Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would not support a war launched primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East. Rather than open this Pandora's Box...the administration chose a different path...not employing out and out deception, but shading the truth...in an effort to convince the world Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction....The administration used innuendo and implication and intentional ignoring of intelligence to the contrary.
Ironically, McClellan addressed this very subject in his last briefing as press secretary. At that time, before he was trying to sell books and ingratiate himself with liberals, he rightly condemned the revisionist history that is peddled by the left...and, now, by his book:


Q: Some people seemed to take out their frustrations yesterday on Secretary Rumsfeld. What did the President think about that exchange? And does it change his opinion at all about the Secretary?

MR. McCLELLAN: People have a right to express their views, but I think you ought to step back and review history a little bit, not try to rewrite history. Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat. It was a threat to the region, it was a threat to the world. And in the aftermath of September 11th, this President made a determination that we were going to confront threats before they fully materialized, before it was too late.

And this President has led the way. We all saw the same intelligence. Now, the intelligence was wrong, but it was the collective judgment of the intelligence community that decisions were made upon. And this President took steps to appoint a bipartisan independent commission, and that commission took a look at the intelligence because it's vital in this dangerous time we live in when there are terrorists who still want to strike America, that we make sure we have the best possible intelligence.

And regardless of where you stood before, this is a time when we all need to be coming together to support our troops in Iraq and to support our plan for victory in Iraq, because success in Iraq is critical to winning the war on terrorism. It is the central front in the war on terrorism. The terrorists recognize that. They recognize how high the stakes are, and you see the Zarqawi video. We must continue to move forward and help the Iraqi people who have shown that they want to build a brighter future, that they want to live in freedom, when 12 million people show up at the polls, and when a group of leaders that they elected comes together and forms a national unity government.

Let's look at the collective judgment of the intelligence community. It was outlined in the National Intelligence Estimate, and it was provided to members of Congress, too, so that they could look at. Intelligence around the world, in different countries around the world, was the same kind of intelligence that we saw. And the world recognized that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat.
Of course, if McClellan had repeated in his book what he knew to be true in April 2006, the Today show wouldn't be calling him, and his book would have gone straight to the remainder table.

Of course, he was was being factual in his Press Briefing, there is an ample amount of documented history to support what everyone believed -- and openly expressed prior to March 2003 -- about Saddam Hussein and the danger he posed.

[balli]

edit

[clambake]

he said it to russert, and you could see the pain in his expression.

i think he wants to make up for his complicity.

[Yonivore]

Okay. You go find me some quotes from non-Bush Admin officials or other world leaders where they say things like without a doubt there are WMD's. Or find me some quotes where they say they know where they are. You find me a quote from a world leader who says that Iraq definitively has an entire fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of striking the US.

You show me when and where other world leaders said:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America?s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam?s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq?s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration?s policy towards Iraq, I don?t think there can be any question about Saddam?s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[Yonivore]

he said it to russert, and you could see the pain in his expression.

i think he wants to make up for his complicity.

Oh, for fuck's sake...his goddamn expression? You people are hilarious.

[balli]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America?s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam?s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq?s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration?s policy towards Iraq, I don?t think there can be any question about Saddam?s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Sorry, I didn't know a bunch of now washed up Democrats in the late 90s and early 2000's talking about the potential of weapons counted as the same thing as




every world leader alive between 1991 and 2003 that were saying the exact same thing as the Bush administration officials you quoted.

[clambake]

it took guts to come out like powell did. even bush confirmed the reason was oil when he told billo that they were going to use oil as extortion.

the real sophomoric move was outing plame when everyone found out about the Niger lie.

[Bigzax]

you guys convinced me...i voted for him twice...but it's time to cross the street...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/inburrito/bigzakliberal.jpg

[dallaskd]

you guys convinced me...i voted for him twice...but it's time to cross the street...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/inburrito/bigzakliberal.jpg

I think thats a little fucked up. the dude is our president.

[ChumpDumper]

One thing about Zak, he doesn't half-ass things.

He uses his whole ass.

[Yonivore]

Sorry, I didn't know a bunch of now washed up Democrats in the late 90s and early 2000's talking about the potential of weapons counted as the same thing as
Uh, most of the quotes come from a period when they weren't considered "washed up." How old are you?

Tell you what...you find me a world leader or one of your political heroes, from prior to March of 2003, that said Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat or didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

[Bobby Joe]

I think thats a little fucked up. the dude is our president.

then serve in his war you little shit and dont come back like all the young men that didnt come home to their family all due to some bullshit ,fabricated war.

[JoeChalupa]

Pat Buchanan has a new book out too.

http://patbuchananbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/bk-pjb-chuw165.jpg

I'm going to read it.

[Bigzax]

I think thats a little fucked up. the dude is our president.


yeah, it's a little fucked up...but i love GW...and i'm not an uptight fuck like alot of peeps...all in good fun...and how many have the chance to say they protested in trefalger square? at least i didn't march with the communists...cuz i mean...fuck communism...and fuck marching...later political forum...this was my appearance for 2008...as you were...

[Yonivore]

Wow! I really thought the forum BDS-sufferers would still be harping, carping, gloating, and whatever-else-they-do over McClellan's book. But, here we are a mere 24 hours after it hit the fan and this thread is dying.

Here, let me throw some fuel on the fire:

An English professor at Dartmouth used to say, "I don't really know what I think until I write it." He was referring to the fact that thoughts crystallize when subjected to the rigors of the English language and its rules of usage and grammar. And he was paying homage to the magic of the lonely, and in his mind sacred, encounter between author and (in those days) paper.

Scott McClellan seems to be relying on the same point. He claims (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20080530_McClellan_answers_critics_of_his_book.htm l) that he did not set out to write a memoir sharply critical of the administration but that in the process of actually writing the book, the scales dropped from his eyes. This would explain, I suppose, why McClellan's book so flatly contradicts many of his public (and to colleagues, private) pronouncements. He never really knew what he thought until he wrote it.

There are a few problems with this defense, however. First, the English professor wasn't making the absurd claim that facts change when you write them. Second, McClellan's book is not the product of a lonely encounter with his keyboard; he had help. The help came (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20080530_McClellan_answers_critics_of_his_book.htm l) from, among others, Peter Osnos, a former Washington Post writer. Osnos is the head of the liberal publishing company that published McClellan's book. It is he who helped transform McClellan's early concept -- a "not very interesting , typical press secretary book" -- into a vitriolic attack on the Bush White House.

Osnos denies that he ghost-wrote or heavily edited McClellan's book. However, he does take credit for making sure that the book "pass[ed] our test for independence, integrity, and candor."

The question then becomes, what would that test look like as applied by Osnos. Here, we encounter the fact that, according to Brett Baker of Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/05/29/mcclennans-publisher-liberal-advances-soros-slams-limbaugh), Osnos' publishing house is affiliated with the far-left The Nation magazine and is the publisher of books by George Soros. It also published The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. Since that book apparently passed Osnos' test for integrity and candor, one can infer that McClellan's original account of his time in the Bush administration did not, and that a major shift in tone and content was required of him before the book could see the light of day. In this regard, Osnos admits to having worked very closely with McClellan and the book's official editor, Lisa Kaufman.

Based on this information, and perhaps on his time at the White House too, one might truly say that Scott McClellan never really knows what he thinks until someone else tells him what that ought to be.

Yesterday, I said it will be interesting to compare the degree to which the MSM reports on Scott McClellan's new book, including its discussion of the Iraq war, with the negligible extent to which it has reported on Douglas Feith's inside look at the same war, as well as the overall war on terrorism. The early returns are now in, and they come as no surprise.

As this report by Howard Kurtz (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html/) of the Washington Post shows, McClellan’s book is a topic of intense discussion not just at the Post but at USA Today and the New York Times. The latter two organs have refused to report on Feith’s book (the Times turned down three separate stories by star reporter James Risen), and the Post has refused to review it. Yet, for reasons discussed below, there can be little question as to which book is more valuable when it comes to understanding why we went to war in Iraq and whether it made sense to do so.

Kurtz refers to McClellan’s book as an example of the “tell-all” genre. Now, it may be true that McClellan is revealing all of his current opinions about, say, the war in Iraq, along with whatever he happens to know about the decision-making relating to that war and the evidence supporting the ultimate decision. But whether this amounts to a “tell-all” depends on how much McClellan actually knows, and this is the subject of considerable doubt. Though I haven’t read his book, I do know that it is devoid of footnotes, endnotes, and supporting documentation. Nor, as has been pointed out, do McClellan’s media appearances suggest that he’s knowledgeable enough to have written a tell-all, at least on this subject.

Feith’s book stands in sharp contrast. First, unlike McClellan, Feith was at the center of the policy-making at issue. Second, his book provides detailed accounts of key meetings based on contemporaneous notes. And, it includes more than 30 pages of original source material plus almost 90 pages of endnotes. Readers can thus determine for themselves whether the author is providing a reliable account or merely settling scores and/or trying to make a buck (Feith, by the way, is donating all proceeds from his book to help Iraq war veterans). Yet the MSM is breathless over McClellan’s book, while it continues studiously to ignore Feith's.

For Kurtz and the rest of the MSM, then, the concept of “tell-all” has little to do with the amount of actual information revealed, or its quality. The key, instead, is the amount of vitriol directed at (in this case) a president the MSM dislikes.

Though newspapers were once thought to be in the information business, politics, not information, seems to be the touchstone when it comes to dealing with books by public figures. I can think of no other explanation for the disparity in the treatment of the recent works of McClellan and Feith.

And then, there's this, this morning:

Scott McClellan Apologizes for Bashing Richard Clarke (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4963452&page=1)
As White House Press Secretary, McClellan Called Clarke's Book on the Bush Administration 'Flat-Out Wrong'



May 30, 2008—

What goes around, comes around.

In an encounter last night in the lobby of a New York hotel, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan apologized for denouncing a former White House colleague, Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser, after Clarke wrote a book highly critical of the Bush administration in 2004.

Now McClellan is facing a similar denunciation from the White House for his own highly critical book.

"I should have known how personal it would get when they went after me, well, I mean, after what I said about you," Clarke says McClellan told him in the lobby of New York's Essex House.

"I think I can forgive you now," Clarke says he replied.

"I'd like to ask you to," McClellan reportedly answered.

In 2004, McClellan said Clarke's book, asserting the Bush administration failed to take timely action against al Qaeda, was "flat-out wrong." He told reporters at a March 22, 2004 briefing, "Ask yourself why, one and a half years later, after he left the administration, he's all of a sudden, coming forward with these grave concerns? If he had such grave concerns, why didn't he come out with them sooner?"

Now White House aides are saying much the same thing about McClellan's assertions, in his book "What Happened," that President Bush waged a deceitful propaganda campaign to promote the war in Iraq.

Clarke, an ABC News consultant, says McClellan appeared to be "very sorry, repentant" for his role as Bush's press secretary.

Both Clarke and McClellan were in New York to promote books.

Clarke appeared Thursday night on "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" to talk about his new book, "Your Government Failed You," and was asked about McClellan's criticism of him in 2004. "I think there is a box in the White House that, if anyone escapes and tells the truth, they break open for talking points about what to say," Clarke told Stewart.

Clarke says the two former Bush administration officials parted with Clarke telling McClellan, "OK. Good luck. Be careful."

Clarke says he left McClellan alone, a position the former press secretary is finding whereever he turns. McClellan's brother Mark, who was a member of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and later appointed by Bush to head the FDA, isn't coming to his defense.

Mark McClellan is now a fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Brookings spokesman Adrianna Pita told ABC News, "He's not making any comment on it."

ABC News' Mark Mooney contributed to this report.
There, talk amongst yourselves...I really want to keep this story alive until McClellan is a smoldering heap of sheep dung. I wonder which donkey dick he sucked.

[clambake]

the thread is dying because it's nothing we hadn't already discovered.

try to stay with us.

[Yonivore]

the thread is dying because it's nothing we hadn't already discovered.

try to stay with us.
Really, what have you "discovered?"

[clambake]

Really, what have you "discovered?"

the things that bother you are true. but don't stop leading the parade. it's entertaining.

[balli]

Really, what have you "discovered?"

That Bush and Co are just a bunch of corrupt, evil, deceptive, crooked, lying, warmongering, stupid, morally base, pieces of shit.

McClellans book changed nothing for me one way or another, it was basically yet even more confirmation about what everybody but a small minority of lunatic-fringe right wingers like yourself, already knew to be true a hundred times over.

[Yonivore]

That Bush and Co are just a bunch of corrupt, evil, deceptive, crooked, lying, warmongering, stupid, morally base, pieces of shit.
And, your evidence for this is?


McClellans book changed nothing for me one way or another, it was basically yet even more confirmation about what everybody but a small minority of lunatic-fringe right wingers like yourself, already knew to be true a hundred times over.
That you use it for confirmation is telling.

[balli]

And, your evidence for this is?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Katrina, Abu Ghraib, Blackwater, Halliburton, Climate Change, No child, WMD claims, intelligent design, executive power, Guantanamo, using 9/11 as a platform to attack iraq, hatred for the UN, lower taxes for the wealthy, shrinking middle class, environmental destruction, dead polar bears, stupid and evil smirks, negative campaigns, lies, record defecits and spending, tanking economy, Ft. Bragg, didn't know the difference between shia and sunni...

Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld.

The endless campaign of sloganry/propoganda: shock and awe, fight em there, cut and run, islamo-fascism, stay the course, adapt to win, last throes, mission accomplished, gathering threat, flip-flop, global war on terror.

1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.

2. Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 – bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position, the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation.

3. Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.

4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

6. Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

7. Deriding "nation-building" during the 2000 debates, then engaging American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation building in American history.

8. Predicting along with others in his administration that US troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

9. Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

10. Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

11. Trusting Ahmed Chalabi, who has dismissed faulty intelligence he provided the President as necessary for getting the Americans to topple Saddam.

12. Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq's water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of that country's infrastructure.

13. Failing to give UN weapons inspectors enough time to certify if weapons existed in Iraq.

14. Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.

15. Announcing that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a "Mission Accomplished" banner – more U.S. soldiers have died in combat since Bush's announcement than before it.

16. Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food.

17. Refusing to cede any control of Post-invasion Iraq to the international community, meaning reconstruction has received limited aid from European allies or the U.N.

18. Failing to convince NATO allies why invading Iraq was important.

19. Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq.

20. Limiting bidding on Iraq construction projects to "coalition partners," unnecessarily alienating important allies France, Germany and Russia.

21. Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.

22. Shutting down an Iraqi newspaper for "inciting violence" – the move, which led in short order to street fighting in Fallujah, incited more violence than the newspaper ever had.

23. Telling Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell.

24. Allowing several members of the Bin Laden family to leave the country just days after 9/11, some of them without being questioned by the FBI.

25. Focusing on missile defense at the expense of counterterrorism prior to 9/11.

26. Thinking al Qaeda could not attack without state sponsors, and ignoring evidence of a growing threat unassociated with "rogue states" like Iraq or North Korea.

27. Threatening to veto the Homeland Security department – The President now concedes such a department "provides the ability for our agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was before."

28. Opposing the creation of the September 11th commission, which the President now expects "to contain important recommendations for preventing future attacks."

29. Denying documents to the 9/11 commission, only relenting after the commissioners threatened a subpoena.

30. Failing to pay more attention to an August 6, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin laden Determined to Attack in U.S."

31. Repeatedly ignoring warnings of terrorists planning to use aircraft before 9/11.

32. Appointing the ultra-secretive Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 commission – Kissinger stepped down weeks later due to conflicts of interest.

33. Asking for testimony before the 9/11 commission be limited to one hour, a position from which the president later backtracked.

34. Not allowing national Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify before the 9/11 commission – Bush changed his mind as pressure mounted.

35. Cutting an FBI request for counterterrorism funds by two-thirds after 9/11.

36. Telling Americans there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

37. Failing to adequately secure the nation's nuclear weapons labs.

38. Not feeling a sense of urgency about terrorism or al Qaeda before 9/11.

39. Reducing resources and troop levels in Afghanistan and out before it was fully secure.

40. Not providing security in Afghanistan outside of Kabul, leaving nearly 80% of the Afghan population unprotected in areas controlled by Feudal warlords and local militias.

41. Committing inadequate resources for the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

42. Counting too heavily on locally trained troops to fill the void in Afghanistan once U.S. forces were relocated to Iraq.

43. Not committing US ground troops to the capture of Osama Bin Laden, when he was cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November, 2001.

44. Allowing opium production to resume on a massive scale after the ouster of the Taliban.

45. Opposing an independent inquiry into the intelligence failures surrounding WMD – later, upon signing off on just such a commission, Bush claimed he was "determined to make sure that American intelligence is as accurate as possible for every challenge in the future."

46. Saying: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."

47. Trusting intelligence gathered by Vice President Cheney's and Secretary Rumsfeld's "Office of Special Plans."

48. Spending $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year to develop new nuclear weapons this year – 50% more in real dollars than the average during the cold war – while shortchanging the troops on body armor.

49. Ignoring the importance of the Middle East peace process, which has deteriorated with little oversight or strategy evident in the region.

50. Siding with China in February, 2004 against a democratic referenda proposed by Taiwan, a notable shift from an earlier pledge to stand with "oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally arrives."

51. Undermining the War on Terrorism by preemptively invading Iraq.

52. Failing to develop a specific plan for dealing with North Korea.

53. Abandoning the United States' traditional role as an evenhanded negotiator in the Middle East peace process.

54. Signing a report endorsing outsourcing with thousands of American workers having their jobs shipped overseas.

55. Instituting steel tariffs deemed illegal by the World Trade Organization – Bush repealed them 20-months later when the European Union pledged to impose retaliatory sanctions on up to $2.2 billion in exports from the United States.

56. Promoting economic policies that failed to create new jobs.

57. Promoting economic policies that failed to help small businesses

58. Pledging a "jobs and growth" package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 and 5.5 million new jobs by 2004—so far the president has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of the mark.

59. Running up a foreign deficit of "such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy."

60. Issuing inaccurate budget forecasts accompanying proposals to reduce the deficit, omitting the continued costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and elements of Homeland Security.

61. Claiming his 2003 tax cut would give 23 million small business owners an average tax cut of $2,042 when "nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less" than that amount.

62. Passing tax cuts for the wealthy while falsely claiming "people in the 10 percent bracket" were benefiting most."

63. Passing successive tax cuts largely responsible for turning a projected surplus of $5 trillion into a projected deficit of $4.3 trillion.

64. Moving to strip millions of overtime pay.

65. Not enforcing corporate tax laws.

66. Backing down from a plan to make CEOs more accountable when "the corporate crowd" protested.

67. Not lobbying oil cartels to change their mind about cutting oil production.

68. Passing tax cuts weighted heavily to help the wealthy.

69. Moving to allow greater media consolidation.

70. Nominating a notorious proponent of outsourcing, Anthony F. Raimondo, to be the new manufacturing Czar—Raimondo withdrew his name days later amidst a flurry of harsh criticism.

71. Ignoring calls to extend unemployment benefits with long-term unemployment reaching a twenty-year high

72. Threatening to veto pension legislation that would give companies much needed temporary relief.

73. Under-funding No Child Left Behind

74. Breaking his campaign pledge to increase the size of Pell grants.

75. Signing off on an FY 2005 budget proposing the smallest increase in education funding in nine years.

76. Under-funding the Title I Program, specifically targeted for disadvantaged kids, by $7.2 billion.

77. Freezing Teacher Quality State Grants, cutting off training opportunities for about 30,000 teachers, and leaving 92,000 less

teachers trained than the president called for in his own No Child Left Behind bill.

78. Freezing funding for English language training programs.

79. Freezing funding for after school programs, potentially eliminating 50,000 children from after-school programs.

80. Not leveling with Americans about the cost of Medicare – the president told Congress his new Medicare bill would cost $400 billion over ten years despite conclusions by his own analysts the bill would cost upwards of $500 billion over that period.

81. Silencing Medicare actuary Richard Foster when his estimates for the Administration's Medicare bill were too high.

82. Letting business associate David Halbert, who owns a company which stands to make millions from new discount drug cards, craft key elements of the new Medicare bill.

83. Underfunding health care for troops and veterans.

84. Allowing loopholes to persist in Mad-Cow regulations.

85. Relaxing food labeling restrictions on health claims.

86. Falsely claiming the restrictions on stem cell research would not hamper medical progress.

87. Reducing action against improper drug advertising by 80 percent.

88. Abandoning the Kyoto Treaty without offering an alternative for reducing greenhouse effect.

89. Counting on a voluntary program to reduce emissions of harmful gasses—so far only a tiny fraction of American companies have signed up.

90. Gutting clean air standards for aging power plants.

91. Weakening energy efficiency standards.

92. Relaxing dumping standards for mountaintop mining, and opening the Florida Everglades and Oregon's Siskiyou National Forest to mining.

93. Lifting protection for more than 200 million acres of public land.

94. Limiting public challenges to logging projects and increased logging in protected areas, including Alaska's Tongass National Forest.

95. Weakening environmental standards for snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles while pushing for exemptions for air pollution proposals for five categories of industrial facilities.

96. Opposing legislation that would require greater fuel efficiency for passenger cars.

97. Reducing inspections, penalties for violations, and prosecution of environmental crimes.

98. Misleading the public about the Washington mad cow case and the likely effectiveness of USDA's weak testing program.

99. Withdrawing public information on chemical plant dangers, previously used to hold facilities accountable for safety improvements.

100. Cutting grants to state and local governments in FY 2005, forcing states to make massive cuts in job training, education, housing and environment.

[clambake]

whoa, whoa, easy......you want yoni to blow a circuit?

[boutons_]

Yoni is way past ridiculous. McClellan's book brings no news, surprises no one, confirms what so many non-Kool-aid drinkers knew all along.

The yoni's and Repug asshole rippers are telling us that it's McClellan who is lying? GMAFB

These despicable people have no shame.

The yoni's know that McClellan and everybody knows what the score is.
dubya lied and the yoni's got suckered.
They refuse to admit they got suckered.

All lies. Iraq was purely for oil. Suck it, Yoni, it's all yours.

[JoeChalupa]

McClellan has learned to think for himself. Yonivore thinks like he's told to think.

[clambake]

pretty good, but you left out some personal "pocket lining" events.

500,000 missing weapons
and
:lmao 9 billion dollars in cash! :lmao

[PixelPusher]

WTF Duel? You slummin'? I thought you had your own sewer of a forum in which to wallow.

Anyway, let's hope this comes to fruition...

Wexler: McClellan Must Testify Under Oath Before House Judiciary Committee (http://wexler.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl19_wexler/050808_mcclellanpressrelease.shtml)

I'm betting Scottie wasn't planning on actually having to defend his statements under oath.

Scottie says he's willing to testify (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/30/mcclellan-id-be-happy-to-testify-about-bush-white-house/), and the White House doesn't share your eagerness (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/30/mcclellan-testify/) to see him take the stand.

[Wild Cobra]

Wexler: McClellan Must Testify Under Oath Before House Judiciary Committee (http://wexler.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl19_wexler/050808_mcclellanpressrelease.shtml)

I'm betting Scottie wasn't planning on actually having to defend his statements under oath.

Yes, let's see how he testifies under oath. With what I heard on the Neal Boortz show, it appears the book is a fabrication, rather some truth twisted.

[boutons_]

99% of the attacks are on McClellan, not on what he says, for which the WH/Repugs/neo-cunts have no defense and nothing to say.

[Yonivore]

Scottie says he's willing to testify (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/30/mcclellan-id-be-happy-to-testify-about-bush-white-house/), and the White House doesn't share your eagerness (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/30/mcclellan-testify/) to see him take the stand.
Perino was answering a direct question.


In today’s White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that the White House, hypothetically, could stop McClellan from testifying:

QUESTION: Could the White House block him from testifying, if he wanted to testify? Or how does that work?

PERINO: Conceivably?

QUESTION: Yes.

PERINO: Hypothetically, which I’m not supposed to answer a hypothetical, yes, I think so. The law would allow for that. But by saying that, I’m not suggesting that that’s what would happen or not happen.
Seems pretty ambivalent to me.

[ChumpDumper]

You know, McClellan had this book reviewed by the White House before it was published, so trying to argue about the veracity of the content now is pretty silly.

[clambake]

neal boortz :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Perino was answering a direct question.


Seems pretty ambivalent to me.She's out of the loop!

[JoeChalupa]

I think Perino is kind of hot.

[Wild Cobra]

You know, McClellan had this book reviewed by the White House before it was published, so trying to argue about the veracity of the content now is pretty silly.

Are you high again? The review is a formality for screening of confidential content. Not if they agree or disagree.

The White House cannot stop a book from being published because they don't like the content. As long as secrets are not disclosed, I don't think they can do very mush.

Imagine the fallout if they were to supress someones first amendment rights!

[ChumpDumper]

Are you high again? The review is a formality for screening of confidential content. Not if they agree or disagree.:lol The point is they knew the content and have known the content for some time. If they really had any problem with the facts, they could have said exactly what they thought was wrong and why in the press even before the book was published.

Why didn't they do that?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol The point is they knew the content and have known the content for some time. If they really had any problem with the facts, they could have said exactly what they thought was wrong and why in the press even before the book was published.

Why didn't they do that?
It has been brought up at least a week ago on talk radio, I don't recall which show or exactly when, but this is already old news to those of us who listen to more than just the liberal mainstream media.

[ChumpDumper]

So why didn't they?

[Wild Cobra]

So why didn't they?

What are you asking me?

Are you asking me why the leftist mainstream media didn't report the concerns?

Duh... the are biased...

[ChumpDumper]

What are you asking me?

Are you asking me why the leftist mainstream media didn't report the concerns?

Duh... the are biased...No I'm asking you why the White House didn't deal with the assertions of the book earlier.

Since your media sources were all over it, you should already know.

[Wild Cobra]

No I'm asking you why the White House didn't deal with the assertions of the book earlier.

Deal with what. Allegations that to acknowledge them might legitimize them in many peoples eyes? It's a no win scenario. That's my best guess.



Since your media sources were all over it, you should already know.

No, there were early leaks of the material at least a week ago. Speculation is not fact. I only know the basic content was known. I also know the integrity of the publisher is close to zero and that they edited McClellan's draft. I can make an educated guess that McCellan's draft was approved, then when it was altered by the publisher became fiction. I'm confident history will see it as such. Of course, I could be wrong. Only time will tell.

Please stop snooping for positive answers. You know I don't have them. At least I hope you are not stupid enough to think I have definitive answers on this.

[ChumpDumper]

I also know the integrity of the publisher is close to zero and that they edited McClellan's draft.Prove it. Not by posting some talking head innuendo.

Prove it.


Please stop snooping for positive answers. You know I don't have them. At least I hope you are not stupid enough to think I have definitive answers on this.I know you don't have answers. I don't understand why you keep pretending like you do.

[Wild Cobra]

Prove it. Not by posting some talking head innuendo.

Prove it.
It would be hard to convince you and others. You are hard headed. I don't care if you believe me or not. Not worth my time. History will tell.



I know you don't have answers. I don't understand why you keep pretending like you do.

Please notice that I do try to distinguish between facts and opinions by the words I use.

Would you agree o disagree I do better than most at that?

[ChumpDumper]

It would be hard to convince you and others. You are hard headed. I don't care if you believe me or not. Not worth my time. History will tell.So you're saying talking head innuendo is all you have.


Understood.



Please notice that I do try to distinguish between facts and opinions by the words I use.

Would you agree o disagree I do better than most at that?You have notable lapses.

[Wild Cobra]

So you're saying talking head innuendo is all you have.


Understood.

OK, we can go as far as calling it dogma if you like. I take a certain faith in the matter. You are right, I don't know it as 100% fact. However, I have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

It would take me too much time to explain how I derrived my conclusion, and source the material to make it worth my time.

Again, history will tell. I trust I am on the right side of the future's history.



You have notable lapses.
We all have opinions. I acknowledge that as yours.

You still didn't answer a simple question as to weather or not my attempt to distinguish between fact and opinion is better than most others.

Will it hurt that much to agree?

[ChumpDumper]

OK, we can go as far as calling it dogma if you like. I take a certain faith in the matter. You are right, I don't know it as 100% fact. However, I have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

It would take me too much time to explain how I derrived my conclusion, and source the material to make it worth my time.You have a habit of claiming to spend a lot of time researching something then stating it isn't worth your time to explain your research. It's much easier to dismiss your assertions when you do this.



We all have opinions. I acknowledge that as yours.

You still didn't answer a simple question as to weather or not my attempt to distinguish between fact and opinion is better than most others. You don't lie all the time like Yonivore, so you got that going for you.

Will it hurt that much to agree?Since your lapses are so notable, I have to say your record is mixed.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't lie all the time like Yonivore, so you got that going for you....

[Wild Cobra]

You have a habit of claiming to spend a lot of time researching something then stating it isn't worth your time to explain your research. It's much easier to dismiss your assertions when you do this.

Some things are of more interest to me than others. That's all it is. This item has little interest to me other than giving my position. I'm not going to go out of my way to defend president Bush. As much as I like some of his actions, I dispise others.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, you just spent half an hour telling us it's not worth your time....

[Wild Cobra]

Well, you just spent half an hour telling us it's not worth your time....
It's not that much time while multitasking. Researching links, or other material takes seroius time.

[FromWayDowntown]

I have developed an opinion about this story and it's that McClellan is telling the truth and that the Right is in a tizzy trying to find various ways to impugn his character in a desperate attempt to dissuade Americans from seeing yet another brick cemented in the wall of this Administration's atrocities.

I can't share my research with anyone -- it would take way too much time for me to do so -- and its not like it would convince those who are inclined to disagree with me anyway.

[boutons_]

Typical Repug/right-wing/neo-cunt counter-attack. They can't touch his allegations since they haven't any evidence, they won't drag him into court since they don't want anybody's sworn testimony, they KNOW nobody believes the WH/neo-cunts anymore, etc, etc.

So McClellan is attacked personally, while his message is mostly ignored, or at best in distant 2nd place.

They are ALL total liars.

[Wild Cobra]

Typical Repug/right-wing/neo-cunt counter-attack. They can't touch his allegations since they haven't any evidence, they won't drag him into court since they don't want anybody's sworn testimony, they KNOW nobody believes the WH/neo-cunts anymore, etc, etc.

So McClellan is attacked personally, while his message is mostly ignored, or at best in distant 2nd place.

They are ALL total liars.

I think we all agree they are more credible than you are....