Iraq and Bush's legacy

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't be too sure on that....last night Scott said that it was Bush himself that gave Libby permission to out Plame. As Bush came back on AirForce One as Scott recalls he asked Bush if he knew about Libby and outing Plame and he said yeah I do, I gave permission.

"As Scott recalls" doesn't count for much except selling books. He is getting roasted on the obligatory promotion tour and interviews for not even being in the meetings he reports so much detail on.

Besides, Dana Perino is much better looking.

[sharkman]

Shock, surprise, etc. Bush's admin deceived the public and the media were compliant. Golly! Where would we be without Scott McClellan to make a few more whore's dollars -- oops, I mean, to explain these controversial ideas to us.

No sane person failed to realize these things 4, probably 5 years ago. But McClellan kept lying his ass off for the admin as long as he was paid to. His sudden change of heart means less than nothing.

I think it's worth considering how McClellan bullshitted when Richard Clarke blew the whistle on the misrepresentations and incompetence of the Bush White House:

As rational people knew then, and as McClellan admits now, Clarke was right and McClellan was deliberately, self-consciously lying about it. Now McClellan wants a pat on the back and $29.99 per copy as a reward for his sudden attack of honesty?

Ah yes, the old, "I was lying my ass off before, but NOW I'm telling you the truth" gambit. What a crock. He can't be believed on either version of his story except to say that he's just another book seller who tells whatever story will pay the most.

Edited May 30, 2008 by sharkman

[gc1765]

Ah yes, the old "playing the man instead of playing the ball" arguments...

We know that the Iraq war wasn't about WMD's. We know it wasn't about 9/11. We know it wasn't to help the Iraqi people. So someone please explain what the war WAS about if it was not about popularity/legacy??

[HisSelf]

It amazes me that even when his conservative allies turn against him, some people can find a way to believe Bush is a victim of the leftist media.

Zing! Good one!

[sharkman]

Ah yes, the old "playing the man instead of playing the ball" arguments...

We know that the Iraq war wasn't about WMD's. We know it wasn't about 9/11. We know it wasn't to help the Iraqi people. So someone please explain what the war WAS about if it was not about popularity/legacy??

If only some of the Bush hatin' buddies on your side would follow the "play the ball instead of playing the man" argument. But in reality, if it's a public figure whose character we need to judge, then what he does and what he says is fair game. If you don't like it then I'll watch your critiques of Bush and the "vast right wing conspiracy" to see if you can follow your own advice.

Someone who holds two opposing views on an issue depending on who's paying his salary is not to be trusted. Colin Powell did much better in this regard and as such I'd vote for him over Obama any day.

Edited May 31, 2008 by sharkman

[gc1765]

Someone who holds two opposing views on an issue depending on who's paying his salary is not to be trusted.

If a liar told you that 2 + 2 = 4, would you believe him? Or would you assume that he is lying and therefore 2 + 2 must not equal 4?

[marcinmoka]

If people understood what was at stake in Iraq, they would never have voted for the idiot-in-chief. In Iraq, all that was at stake was the Bush legacy, both his and his father's.

Do you honestly believe that the political, business and media elite, not to mention, millions of regular Americans and decision makers from other nations supported this operation so that Bush can "make his daddy proud", at a cost of billions, if not more, indirectly? Kinda of a crappy ROI, no?

While it may not be overly PC to say it, the quest for resources and future financial stability lay at the very root of this. Whether to secure supplies for themselves, or at the very least, prevent future rivals such as China from acquiring all that their hearts desire, this one should be a no-brainer. Sadly, some are still stumped. At least Greenspan had not been so coy about it.

Edited May 30, 2008 by marcinmoka

[sharkman]

If a liar told you that 2 + 2 = 4, would you believe him? Or would you assume that he is lying and therefore 2 + 2 must not equal 4?

On something as simple as addition I could verify the answer. On something as complex as a US administration, I could not verify the evidence that he witnessed. But I could look at his character and the fact that he held two opposing views on the administration depending who was paying his salary.

[gc1765]

On something as simple as addition I could verify the answer.

So perhaps you have an answer of your own to my previous question: why do you think Bush decided to invade Iraq? He didn't have WMDs, he wasn't behind 9/11, and if it was humanitarian (to help the Iraqis) the half a trillion dollars could have been MUCH better spent and helped WAY more people. So what do you think?

[Topaz]

"As Scott recalls" doesn't count for much except selling books. He is getting roasted on the obligatory promotion tour and interviews for not even being in the meetings he reports so much detail on.

Besides, Dana Perino is much better looking.

Again as Scott said last night, no one is saying he's wrong, they are saying I can't believe he would write this book. Scott said from the moment Bush told him about Plame, he started to have doubts about this government and he finally decided he couldn't stay. Now this government will come out and say anything to save their asses from jail time won't they??

[BubberMiley]

No one is saying he's wrong who knows anything. A few anonymous internet posters will say he's wrong because they have such little knowledge about the issue, they feel comfortable believing anything they want.

[peter_puck]

Do you honestly believe that the political, business and media elite, not to mention, millions of regular Americans and decision makers from other nations supported this operation so that Bush can "make his daddy proud", at a cost of billions, if not more, indirectly? Kinda of a crappy ROI, no?

No, the other poster said that the real reason for the invasion should have been told to the American people. I pointed out what the real reason was, and that if it was explained, nobody would be interested.

I just got a piece of spam telling me that I could increase my gas millage by putting these stuipid pills in my gas tank. I may buy them because I feel they will work, but the guy that is selling them may be doing so because he wants to rip people off and spend the money on Russian hookers. If he advertised the real reason he wanted to sell me the crap, I would not buy it. Same with Bush.

Bush said he was going to Iraq because of weapons of mass distruction and a Iraq-Al Queda link. When it comes to international affairs the US public is as dumb as those guys who buy the gas pills.

While it may not be overly PC to say it, the quest for resources and future financial stability lay at the very root of this. Whether to secure supplies for themselves, or at the very least, prevent future rivals such as China from acquiring all that their hearts desire, this one should be a no-brainer. Sadly, some are still stumped. At least Greenspan had not been so coy about it.

How many times did the Bush administration say "This is not about oil" ?

I can see on the surface the logic of this arguement, and I know lots of people thought like this. But, it has accomplished the exact opposite of what it intended. The US has spend ooodles of money and tied down/worn out its military. Iran and North Korea have left the reservation because they are not as afraid of the US as they used to be. Iraqs oil production is no where near what normal output should be. The US is in no position to control those resources once it leaves. The US is also very unpopular all over the country.

[peter_puck]

President Bush is no victim...he will finish two complete terms and there isn't going to be any impeachment....tell-all books by ex-staffers just isn't the same thing!

He will leave office a hated man. Possibly the worst president of all time. I don't think that legacy will sit well with him.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Bush said he was going to Iraq because of weapons of mass distruction and a Iraq-Al Queda link. When it comes to international affairs the US public is as dumb as those guys who buy the gas pills.

The American public is no more "dumb" than the Canadian public, who also supported (and enforced) the strangling of Iraqis for non-compliance with Gulf War I surrender instruments. Indeed, Canada authored a "compromise" that guaranteed war.

In February 1998 we find that Canada was not so fussy about WMD and Iraq:

The orders came through just before midnight, as HMCS Toronto was plowing through rough seas in the Atlantic just outside the Strait of Gibraltar. In Ottawa, 5,400 km and five time zones to the west, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was on his feet in the House of Commons. Canada, he made clear, was ready to send forces to the Persian Gulf once again to stand with the United States as it threatens to launch another attack on Iraq.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0011521

The Americans and British would try to decapitate Saddam later that year in December by bombing over 100 sites in Operation Desert Fox.

Edited May 31, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[marcinmoka]

How many times did the Bush administration say "This is not about oil" ?

And Clinton never inhaled. And Exon Mobil is an 'environmental solutions' firm.

This is all just primitive PR, basic damage control in a world flooded by soundbytes with no in-depth explanation. You judge a group/individual on actions, not words.

But, it has accomplished the exact opposite of what it intended. The US has spend ooodles of money and tied down/worn out its military.

Far from it. Militarily, this is a very peaceful conflict (think of the sheer no. of casualties in most other historical conflicts). In reality, could any other force still outgun them, even in this supposed "moment of weakness"?

As per the financial burden, maybe so, but only in the short term. But as in domestic capital markets, no pain, no gain. Think of this more along the terms of a 'value investment', one going for the long term. With $200 / bl petrol, it might start seeming a bargain.

Even than, how do you calculate the value of preventing a foreign rival from accessing these same reserves?

--------

This having been said, there were plenty, and I mean plenty of bad management decisions made along the way, from "marketing/PR" right down to "operations". Nonetheless, the idea had far more validity than its execution, but in this regards, only time will tell. U.S may of lost the Vietnam war on paper, but as any visitor to modern day Vietnam might attest to, it sure doesn't look that way now!

[sharkman]

So perhaps you have an answer of your own to my previous question: why do you think Bush decided to invade Iraq? He didn't have WMDs, he wasn't behind 9/11, and if it was humanitarian (to help the Iraqis) the half a trillion dollars could have been MUCH better spent and helped WAY more people. So what do you think?

I respond to your issue, and then you change the subject. Very well, Bush invaded Iraq because of WMD. There was a consensus among America's political leaders(including most democrats) as well as Britain and others who all saw the same intel, that Iraq was a serious problem that needed an invasion.

[bush_cheney2004]

I respond to your issue, and then you change the subject. Very well, Bush invaded Iraq because of WMD. There was a consensus among America's political leaders(including most democrats) as well as Britain and others who all saw the same intel, that Iraq was a serious problem that needed an invasion.

Correct....this stance was consistent with foreign policy and military actions for Iraq going back to 1991. The chronic condition of Saddam's Iraq was not acceptable to the administartion in the wake of 9/11, and other geopolitical interests could also be satisfied. The US Congress agreed.

[peter_puck]

The American public is no more "dumb" than the Canadian public, who also supported (and enforced) the strangling of Iraqis for non-compliance with Gulf War I surrender instruments. Indeed, Canada authored a "compromise" that guaranteed war.

I did not say that the American public was any dumber than anyone else - in general. Study after study, however, has shown them to know less about the world than the people in any other country. They do studies every once and a while asking people to point out a continent on a globe. US looses that competition by a long shot. This is not related to intelligence, just geography and history.

This is no better illustrated than by Bush being able to convince people there is a connection between Al Queda and Saddam. Most US citizens don't seem to have a clue what Al Queda is about, therefore they fall for that sort of crap.

As for Gulf War sanctions - I think they were a dam good idea. They were effective in preventing Saddam from rearming or getting WMD's. Had they just been left in place, Saddam would have died of old age and the world would be a much safer place.

[HisSelf]

I did not say that the American public was any dumber than anyone else - in general. Study after study, however, has shown them to know less about the world than the people in any other country. They do studies every once and a while asking people to point out a continent on a globe. US looses that competition by a long shot. This is not related to intelligence, just geography and history.

This is no better illustrated than by Bush being able to convince people there is a connection between Al Queda and Saddam. Most US citizens don't seem to have a clue what Al Queda is about, therefore they fall for that sort of crap.

As for Gulf War sanctions - I think they were a dam good idea. They were effective in preventing Saddam from rearming or getting WMD's. Had they just been left in place, Saddam would have died of old age and the world would be a much safer place.

Don't waste your time on Bush_Cheney2004. He is usually illogical and just as often irrational. There comes a time when any sane person will admit defeat. When that time passes, discourse passes from the realm of the sane to the twilight zone.

Edited May 31, 2008 by HisSelf

[sharkman]

Just because you can't beat someone in a battle of wits is no reason to get personal. Certainly you have more wits then that.

[bush_cheney2004]

I did not say that the American public was any dumber than anyone else - in general. Study after study, however, has shown them to know less about the world than the people in any other country. They do studies every once and a while asking people to point out a continent on a globe. US looses that competition by a long shot. This is not related to intelligence, just geography and history.

There are over 6 billion people on the planet and about 195 countries.....it is quite a stretch to make your claim about "any other country". Don't confuse knowledge with choice....American media feeds the very dynamic you are referring to, and it is devoured by international consumers, so much so, that Canada has to erect trade barriers to American media proliferation. In many cases, some Americans don't know because that don't care to know, and don't care that they don't care to know.

This is no better illustrated than by Bush being able to convince people there is a connection between Al Queda and Saddam. Most US citizens don't seem to have a clue what Al Queda is about, therefore they fall for that sort of crap.

Clue: America (and the UK) had been whipping Iraq's ass for 12 years prior to the invasion, and Canada helped them do it.

As for Gulf War sanctions - I think they were a dam good idea. They were effective in preventing Saddam from rearming or getting WMD's. Had they just been left in place, Saddam would have died of old age and the world would be a much safer place.

Really?...so you think that 25 more years of the reported 50,000 deaths per month from sanctions was a better idea than invading? UN inspections stopped in 1998. Can't have it both ways...and two prime ministers agreed.

[HisSelf]

Just because you can't beat someone in a battle of wits is no reason to get personal. Certainly you have more wits then that.

And then there is the possibility that you are wasting time on the witless...

[Guest American Woman]

Study after study, however, has shown them [Americans] to know less about the world than the people in any other country. They do studies every once and a while asking people to point out a continent on a globe. US looses that competition by a long shot.

This is not true.

[Moonlight Graham]

Scott McClellan was and still is a lying sack of crap. I don't trust anything that comes out of this guy. At least least Ari Fleischer was a likeable and convincing liar.

Watched a few interviews of McClellan on CNN yesterday. Sounds like he wasn't yet retired from his job as spindoctor as he spun and B.S.'d his way through most of the questions. Says he didn't quit or raise concerns because back then because he was "young and naive" and "caught up in the partisan political game" (paraphrased). McClellan knew that a lot of what he was saying was B.S. during the daily White House questions. He should have said something to somebody about his complaints, which apparently he didn't. He should have resigned much sooner, not 3 years into the job, which he didn't.

He's a sack of crap who road the gravy train full steam until it collapsed on him, and only now is voicing his views...publically & for profit. I appreciate the gov't criticism, but its just too little too late and contains mostly things we already know well after the fact.

Bob Dole says it bang-on in an email he sent to McClellan about the book:

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

Dole assures McClellan that he won't read the book — "because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job. That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively," Dole concludes. "You’re a hot ticket now, but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"

[Kitchener]

Bob Dole says it bang-on...

if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been

Yeah, possibly maybe, perhaps, some, may have, sort of.

There's Dole, taking the hard stand in defense of reality.

Problem is, there's basically nobody with clean hands left in the Repubs, the Dems, or the media to point out the hypocrisy of a turd like McLellan, when the topic is concocting, spreading, or rolling over for the deceptions and exciting chest-thumping of 2001-3.