Six,
What specifically in this book do you think is a lie, Gregor?
The bit where he said that Gregor knew what he was talking about before posting his thoughts. ;) HS
What To Think Of Mr. Scott McClellan?
by Rapunzel 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
hillary_step
-
VM44
The White House staff knew that President Bush wanted a reason to invade Iraq, and so they gave him what he wanted.
They advanced their careers, but at the expense of their integrity.
-
hillary_step
VM,
The White House staff knew that President Bush wanted a reason to invade Iraq, and so they gave him what he wanted.They advanced their careers, but at the expense of their integrity.
There may have been an element of this in the scenario, there always is.
The fact however is that the CIA at that time were asked to report daily to Mr Dick Cheney with the 'evidence' that they uncovered regarding WMD. Each morning they were unable to report any such findings to Mr Cheney who would send them back repeatedly with instructions to 'look again'. Eventually they caved in and presented the slimmest evidence that they could concoct to please the bullying Mr. Cheney in his quest to find a reason to invade Iraq.
Lack of integrity, of course. All the players in the CIA admit to this now, but what is certain is that Mr. Cheney, who has been cunning enough to drive from the passenger seat, deliberately manipulated the Government offices to do his will. He is an evil and dangerous man, but will emerge from all this relatively unscathed, while his wee Bush puppet will take the flack from history.
This information was not garnered from the book written by McClellan, which probably holds little new information, but from research freely available from the people involved.
As for McClellan, he admits to having once been a believer, but has left the Church Of The Latter Day Bush, which is his perogative. It is just a matter of weeks before the Internet is full of ex-Bush discussion boards.
As an aside, a few years ago this Board was alive with pro-Bush supporters vigorously defending their leader with nationalistic pride. Some of these people have even posted to this thread. What is singularly missing in their posts these days is any defence whatsover of the President, his policies and his regime. After WWII the joke among the allies was that every German soldier they caught, wherever he captured, fought on the Russian Front and not the Western Front. It was impossible to find a soldier who fought anybody but the Communists. It seems just as hard to find anybody who voted for Bush these days.
What's up, Bush supporters? Cat got your tongue?
HS
-
jwblog
Lack of integrity, of course. All the players in the CIA admit to this now, but what is certain is that Mr. Cheney, who has been cunning enough to drive from the passenger seat, deliberately manipulated the Government offices to do his will. He is an evil and dangerous man, but will emerge from all this relatively unscathed, while his wee Bush puppet will take the flack from history.
The Almighty is watching these men when they rise in the morning, when they walk through the day, and when they lay their head to rest. He peers through their most powerful strongholds. He laughs at their barricades, His angels walk by their nuclear facilities and ridicule their technology. A single angel can wipe out the existence of man, as no weapons of war can match their creation.
I sit here as the Hand of The Almighty and I wait until the day that these wicked men are brought to their knees with The Twinkling of an Eye. They will cower before their GOD, whom knows the intent of their hearts. It is easy for The Almighty, I am sole witness to this in this day.
You feel His Strength as He causes your limbs to grow weak at His Power. He Commands you to bow before Him. Your limbs could feel numb, your heart could pulse, He could hold you at bay with your own hand. He could bring you to your death in a slow and painful fashion. I know The Almighty, no being can match Him.
I feel hatred for those that act like satan. The strength of my heart can bring all wicked to their knees. The wicked have no basis of law in which to stand. Where is Powell, where is Cheney, where is Ashcroft? Truly I say to you, these men will know me. Condoleeza Rice will know my Queen, she is fierce, she is courageous, she is strong.
the faithful slave.......Amen
who is the wild beast (666)? they are the most hated regime in this day and their color is red like that of the scarlet beast.
-
Homerovah the Almighty
Question, do Mental institutes give access to computers for the use of their patients ? ...... JWBLOG or JESUS as he likes to be referred to.
-
Confession
During the time when I might have been accumulating information about this war, I was experiencing quite a LifeQuake: that of coming to realize the religion I'd committed my life to was a sham, coping with the consequences, and trying to re-create my life. I can't lay claim to a full possession of the facts as I'm sure some here will try to do, but I do remember one thing very clearly. I remember that, after 9/11, Bush's opponents were incensed that he was "doing nothing" about it for so long. When finally action was taken, there seemed to be a rare sense of unity in the U.S. For a couple of minutes... I don't know if there is an effective method of measuring disunity or polarization, so I'll just say, to me, it's at a level that's most troubling today.
I don't know whether the U.S. should have gone into Iraq or not. I've heard convincing arguments that we shouldn't have. But what bothers me are the exaggerations and revisions of history associated with this. The claims that the war was a ridiculous joke that no one other than George W. Bush would have considered. That it was obviously initiated for a great variety of greedy reasons. That there never were weapons of mass destruction, and that--even if there were--Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not pose a serious threat to the United States. That it was downright "Nazi" of Bush to try to "impose" an American ideology on the people of Iraq.
Maybe some of these conclusions are correct, but if they are, Mr. Bush has a lot of company...
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." (President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998)
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." (Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998)
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." (Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, Feb, 18, 1998)
"[We] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including 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." (Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998)
"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." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, CA), Dec. 16, 1998)
"Hussein has ...chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction." (Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999)
"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 ... 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." (Sen. Hillary Clinton (Democrat, NY), Oct 10, 2002)"Now Governor Clinton and I have spelled out what we believe is an appropriate policy toward Iraq. We believe that the elements of Democratic resistance within Iraq deserve support and encouragement from the United States of America. We believe that Saddam must be made to comply with the U.N. resolutions--all of the U.N. resolutions--including the one, 688, that prevents him from persecuting his own people... And we believe that American foreign policy ought to be based on a clear understanding of what American interests are in this new world of the Nineties and the 21st Century, and based on American values. Support for freedom, political freedom and economic freedom, and not the coddling of tyrants, which has been the hallmark of the Bush foreign policy." (Al Gore, Clinton's running mate, outlining their intended policy toward Iraq, September 29, 1992)
"The Reagan/Bush administration would overlook the fact that it was an Iraq-based group that masterminded the assassination attempt against Israel's Ambassador to the United Kingdom...was also prepared to overlook the fact that terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it seem to matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs... There might have been a moment's pause for reflection when Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987, killing thirty-seven sailors, but the administration smoothed it over very fast." (Al Gore, in the same speech, September 29, 1992)
"These actions were directed against the Iraqi government, which was responsible for the assassination plot. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated repeatedly that he will resort to terrorism or aggression if left unchecked. Our intent was to target Iraq’s capacity to support violence against the United States and other nations, and to deter Saddam Hussein from supporting such outlaw behavior in the future." (President Clinton, after ordering a missile attack on Iraq, June 26, 1993)
"Our objectives are limited but clear: To make Saddam pay a price for the latest act of brutality, reducing his ability to threaten his neighbors and America’s interests." (President Clinton, after ordering a missile attack on Iraq, September 3, 1996)
"Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth--not on providing for the Iraqi people--but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them... I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again." (President Clinton, January 27th, 1998)
"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home.I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life... The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership." (President Clinton, Statement by the President concerning the "Iraq Liberation Act," October 31, 1998)
I repeat: I don't know if going to war was the right thing or not, but the above, to me, demonstrates the reality of today's political landscape. Maybe it's always been this way. But you have to be willing to consider that when Bush's political opponents act UTTERLY APPALLED at his positions on Iraq, they are less genuine and more opportunistic. And if--in addition to opposing the war--you're going to demonize Bush for his positions, you've got to recognize that many of the very same ideologies were expressed by the very same people who are screaming him down today.
It's the reason why, as a normally conservative-to-Libertarian person, I have (believe it or not) felt so refreshed by Barack Obama. Although I haven't liked many of his political positions, I came to see him as someone who (perhaps) could help heal the loud, angry, partisan sniping that so polarizes us.
-
Indo_Dude
Confession,
A few errors that need to be pointed out. Firstly, Al Gore voted for the first Gulf War. Supported the Afghanistan operation of Pres Bush, but was a loud critic against the lead up to Iraq 2.0. For the most part you cannot quote people from before the major bombing operation in Iraq by Pres. Clinton in Dec. of 1998, as even Mr. Richard Clarke has attested to. There were plenty of people before Iraq 2.0 that called out the fools errand that it has turned out to be.
It's the reason why, as a normally conservative-to-Libertarian person, I have (believe it or not) felt so refreshed by Barack Obama. Although I haven't liked many of his political positions, I came to see him as someone who (perhaps) could help heal the loud, angry, partisan sniping that so polarizes us.
If you think Sen. Obama isn't going to be viciously attacked by the right, you are dreaming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinion/28krugman.html
Let’s review the sad tale, starting with the politics.
So what good did Mr. Clinton’s message of inclusiveness do him?
-
Mickey mouse
Watching Bill O'Reilly laying in to him the other day sounded strangely familiar. He was accusing him of disloyalty and spreading false propaganda. Now where have I heard that sort of talk before....?
Mickey.
-
Confession
For the most part you cannot quote people from before the major bombing operation in Iraq by Pres. Clinton in Dec. of 1998, as even Mr. Richard Clarke has attested to. There were plenty of people before Iraq 2.0 that called out the fools errand that it has turned out to be.
My quotes are not meant to validate the war. They are meant to give pause to someone who thinks Bush was alone in believing Iraq had WMDs. (I myself heard Bill Clinton being interviewed over the telephone sometime in 2002 by Larry King. He was asked the direct question, "Do you believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?" His equally direct answer was to the effect that "We KNOW" he had them. The only question was, "Where are they now; what has he done with them?") The quotes also demonstrate that many of Bush's present enemies themselves believed specifically that Iraq was a threat to the US and its allies. That the US had a responsibility to intervene because of Saddam's "persecuting his own people." And that this idea of helping spread freedom and democracy to Iraq was not something Bush dreamed up. Clinton clearly had the same intention, and would not be deterred by comments about their "ethnic or sectarian makeup."
I hope, in reading the quotes, some can come to recognize that the absolute incredulity we commonly express about what a clown Bush is can be tempered by the realization that many of his primary opponents were thinking the same thing.
-
Indo_Dude
What was true on the ground prior to the bombing in Dec. 1998, was no longer true afterwards. Quoting people from before then, and implying that they those quotes supported the war is disingenuous. Also, it's one thing to be 'concerned' and admit someone was a 'grave concern' or a 'tyrant', without dedicating troops to such an endeavour. How often have politicians said Castro was 'a threat', 'a tyrant' or 'a concern' over the past 50 years?
Also, as Commander In Chief Bush is, was, and always will be responsible for those soldiers under his command. Or as Truman said, 'the buck stops here'. Now, let's play a little quote and paste of what the Bushies said now, shall we?
"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02" am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03