Ex White House Press Secretary: a Key Witness to Impeachable Offenses & War Crimes? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 05-27-2008, 08:16 PM

Former white house press secretary Scott McClellan's new book is finally out in print, and making headlines:

Quote:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ta...ry&btnG=Search

Bush misled US on Iraq, former aide says in new book
Atlanta Journal Constitution, USA - 50 minutes ago
"What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary," he wrote in the preface. The book, which drew a "no ...
Ex-spokesman McClellan blasts Bush in book USA Today
all 68 news articles »
Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled US on Iraq
Washington Post, United States - 13 minutes ago
... comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary. ...

Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled US on Iraq
Washington Post, United States - 15 minutes ago
... comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary. ...

Scottie says that the war was "unnecessary", and he makes the point that the main stream press turned out not to be "liberal."

Isn't waging unnecessary war, when you knew in advance that it was probably unnecssary, as McClellan claims, a war crime, and an impeachable offense? Is this issue finally at the stage where it cannot be denied as the recognition that there were no WMD in Iraq, finally became, in January, 2005?

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/wa...hp&oref=slogin
In Book, Ex-Spokesman Has Harsh Words for Bush

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: May 28, 2008

PHOENIX — President Bush “convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment,” and has engaged in “self-deception” to justify his political ends, Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, writes in a critical new memoir about his years in the West Wing.

In addition, Mr. McClellan writes, the decision to invade Iraq was a “serious strategic blunder,” and yet, in his view, it was not the biggest mistake the Bush White House made. <h2>That, he says, was “a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.”</h2>

Mr. McClellan’s book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” is the first negative account by a member of the tight circle of Texans around Mr. Bush. Mr. McClellan, 40, went to work for Mr. Bush when he was governor of Texas and was the White House press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006.

The revelations in the book, to be published by PublicAffairs next Tuesday, were first reported Tuesday on Politico.com by Mike Allen. Mr. Allen wrote that he bought the book at a Washington store. The New York Times also obtained an advance copy.

Mr. McClellan writes that top White House officials deceived him about the administration’s involvement in the leaking of the identity of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson. He says he did not know for almost two years that his statements from the press room that Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby Jr. were not involved in the leak were a lie.

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

He is harsh about the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina, saying it “spent most of the first week in a state of denial” and “allowed our institutional response to go on autopilot.” Mr. McClellan blames Mr. Rove for one of the more damaging images after the hurricane: Mr. Bush’s flyover of the devastation of New Orleans. When Mr. Rove brought up the idea, Mr. McClellan writes, he and Dan Bartlett, a top communications adviser, told Mr. Bush it was a bad idea because he would appear detached and out of touch. But Mr. Rove won out, Mr. McClellan writes.

A theme in the book is that the White House suffered from a “permanent campaign” mentality, and that policy decisions were inextricably interwoven with politics.

He is critical of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her role as the “sometimes too accomodating” first term national security adviser, and what he calls her deftness at protecting her reputation.

“No matter what went wrong, she was somehow able to keep her hands clean,” Mr. McClellan writes, adding that “she knew how to adapt to potential trouble, dismiss brooding problems, and come out looking like a star.”

Mr. McClellan does not exempt himself from failings — “I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be” — <h3>and calls the news media “complicit enablers” in the White House’s “carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval” in the march to the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003. </h3>

He does have a number of kind words for Mr. Bush, particularly from the April day in 2006 when Mr. Bush met with Mr. McClellan after he learned he was being pushed out. “His charm was on full display, but it was hard to know if it was sincere or just an attempt to make me feel better,” Mr. McClellan writes. “But as he continued, something I had never seen before happened: tears were streaming down both his cheeks.”

We've been going back and forth a longtime here, over all of the controversial things said and done by the Bush administration. From deception about the reasons for attacking Iraq, about the false denials about deliberately outing CIA operative Valerie Plame, about the delayed and incompetent Katrina disaster response, and about the compliant press that so many post has a "liberal" bias, doesn't it appear that the forner white house press secretary McClellan, confirms that all of the negative conclusions were much closer to being accurate, than the defenses of the sincerity, honesty, and effectiveness of this administration, seem now, to be?

Thoughts?

Tully Mars · 05-28-2008, 03:30 AM

I'm a little shocked he, or anyone else, would write and release such a book while Bush is still a sitting POTUS. I give it 30 sec. before the right start calling him a liar, a gold digger, a traitor and just about every other "evil" term they can think up.

Turned on the Boob tube (they really should have more actual "boobs" on there) and the "Morning Joe" gang was stating "if all of what he's saying is true why didn't he say something at the time?" Gee I dunno? Maybe because he was the press sec. and not an adviser? Information flows to him not the other way around.

It begins and by the end of the week he'll be deemed worthy of a mental commitment by the right.

aceventura3 · 05-28-2008, 07:57 AM

My thought about if the war was necessary or not - the answer depends on one's perspective.

On one hand, we decided to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Our decision to invade was preemptive and the timing was our choice. From that perspective I can see how one can conclude the war was unnecessary.

On the other hand, we had been in a undeclared war long before our invasion of Iraq against an enemy that had declared war on the US. Iraq is a key strategic point in the war against terror and removing Saddam Hussein served two purposes. In this regard I see our invasion of Iraq as a part of our broader war on terror, and that the invasion was a part of a military strategy that will prove to be successful or a failure. Given the two choices of fighting a defensive war or an offensive war on an enemy who has declared war on the US, I would choose an offensive war and I do see fighting the war as necessary, defensively or offensively.

ratbastid · 05-28-2008, 08:29 AM

My God, ace... You've drunk the kool-aid so thoroughly on this one, I despair of us ever having a rational conversation about it.

Suffice to say, "we" didn't invade Iraq to remove Hussein from power--that rationale was invented after the fact, when there were no WMDs to be found. And Iraq had nothing to do with this alleged "enemy who had declared war on the US". Those people were also Iraq's enemies. And Iraq was only part of the "broader war on terror" if you can invent WMDs and yellow cake uranium purchases, which didn't exist OR happen.

So, if it's not those three things, why DO you think we initially went to war?

I don't think we'll ever know the REAL reason that the Administration decided to gallop us into this war, but I know what I suspect their reasons were. I suspect their reasons had to do with enriching their military-industrial cronies, their ability to use war to railroad through agenda items at the expense of civil liberties, and their "legacy" as a war presidency.

host · 05-28-2008, 09:07 AM

ace, you're not debating me on this, your task now is to refute the claims of the former white house press secretary, that the war was unnecessary.

To give you some insight into the pitfalls of disagreeing with the man who was the public voice of the white house, here are the three network news anchors responding on TV this am, to McClellans accusations that one of the reasons an unneccessary war happened, was their compliant reaction to the Bush administration's propaganda:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24855902/

If Bush, himself, said the the things Scott McClellan is saying, would Bush saying that the urgency and justification for invasion was contrved, and thus, the war was unnecessary, even sway your opinion?

I think we are down to one of two possibilities, now. Either your opinion is immovable, or only the public admission by Bush that mcClellan is correct, would influence you to change your mind.

There is <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article537580.ece">news reporting</a> that throughout 2002, the US and UK conducted a large unpublicized aerial bombardment campaign against targets in Iraq to soften Iraqi defenses against an invasion. I cannot find a formal declaration of war by Iraq against the US and I cannot find a preinvasion justification for war made by our president or VP that cites Iraq's declaration of war against the US. You posted that the US chose to fight an offensive war. If as you claim, Iraq declared war against the US, wouldn't the US invasion be a defensive response? What is the difference between offensive war and war of aggression?

aceventura3 · 05-28-2008, 10:19 AM

Here is an excerpt from the book, published in the WSJ today:

Quote:

I still like and admire George W. Bush. I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people. But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. Had a high level of openness and forthrightness been embraced from the outset of his administration, I believe President Bush's public standing would be stronger today. His approval ratings have remained at historic lows for so long because both qualities have been lacking to this day. In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121198457525625977.html

The author says he does not think Bush intended to "lie" to the American people. He further suggests that the real problem was not with the war itself but with communication and that the President was not well served by his advisors.

Here is more:

Quote:

An even more fundamental problem was the way his advisers decided to pursue a political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people. It was all part of the way the White House operated and Washington functioned, and no one seemed to see any problem with using such an approach on an issue as grave as war. A pro-war campaign might have been more acceptable had it been accompanied by a high level of candor and honesty, but it was not. Most of the arguments used – especially those stated in prepared remarks by the president and in forums like Powell's presentation at the UN Security Council in February 2003 – were carefully vetted and capable of being substantiated.

Here he is saying initially statements made publicly were capable of being substantiated. He feel that later that changed.

Here is more:

Quote:

To this day, the president seems unbothered by the disconnect between the chief rationale for the war and the driving motivation behind it, and unconcerned about how the case was packaged. The policy is the right one and history will judge it so, once a free Iraq is firmly in place and the Middle East begins to become more democratic.

I agree and I am not concerned with how the "case was packaged". I agree it was the right thing to do. the author is a "PR" guy and it seems his focus is on "PR" not on the actual evidence to support the action.

Here is a good one for you:

Quote:

Bush clung to the same belief during an interview with Tim Russert of NBC News in early February 2004. The Meet the Press host asked, "In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity? "

The president said, "That's an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It's a war of necessity. In my judgment, we had no choice, when we look at the intelligence I looked at, that says the man was a threat."

I remember talking to the president about this question following the interview. He seemed puzzled and asked me what Russert was getting at with the question.

This, in turn, puzzled me. Surely this distinction between a necessary, unavoidable war and a war that the United States could have avoided but chose to wage was an obvious one that Bush must have thought about in the months before the invasion. Evidently it wasn't obvious to the president, nor did his national security team make sure it was. He set the policy early on and then his team focused his attention on how to sell it. It strikes me today as an indication of his lack of inquisitiveness and his detrimental resistance to reflection, something his advisers needed to compensate for better than they did.

Most objective observers today would say that in 2003 there was no urgent need to address the threat posed by Saddam with a large-scale invasion, and therefore the war was not necessary. But this is a question President Bush seems not to want to grapple with.

I can understand Bush's confusion, in my view we were already at war. The suggestion of "necessity" would strike me as odd if I thought people understood we were at war. Saddam historically was a threat to peace in the ME, that was a constant. I and many others felt he should have been removed from power during the first Gulf War. Many believed he was repositioning himself to take future military actions in the region.

It seems the author makes assumptions about what Bush did and did not give thought to, I am not sure how he does that.

This next one is confusing to me. If the war was unnecessary how could it ever be considered a success, "...good for America, good for Iraq and good for the world" to the point where untruths would be ignored? Perhaps you can help me with this.

Quote:

All the president can do today is hope that his vision of Iraq will ultimately come true, putting the Middle East on a new path and vindicating his decision to go to war. I would welcome such a development as good for America, good for Iraq, and good for the world. Bush knows that posterity has a way of rewarding success over candor and honesty.

In direct answer to your question, you have to understand my position. One way to look at it, sure the war in Iraq was unnecessary, but we were already at war prior to our invasion of Iraq. In my view Iraq is a front in the broader war. I see invading Iraq similar to the invasion at Normandy during WWII. We certainly did not need to invade France at Normandy but it was a part of a military strategy, just like the invasion of Iraq in my opinion. If you don't understand that, you can not understand my view on the question. I do think the administration failed in communicating the invasion of Iraq the way that I do, I think thoughtful people would get it and the general public would have accepted it. But I have been known to be wrong from time to time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

So, if it's not those three things, why DO you think we initially went to war?

As Bush suggested many times, it is better to fight in Iraq than in New York. And a benefit of invading Iraq was getting Saddam out of power. If democracy takes root in Iraq, Iraq will serve has an ally in the region. Iraq is strategically positioned in the region, controlling Iraq is key to future peace in the region. I have a long-term view on this issue.

Poppinjay · 05-28-2008, 10:30 AM

There were several things wrong with the war, and I was disappointed by hearing a quote today from Tori Clarke about the whole deal. She's a decent comminicator who worked for the Pentagon and not one to obfuscate the truth. She blasted McClellan as being weak by not arguing against this stupid war and not resigning when it came to loggerheads.

Well, he did, and he did. There was a whole torrent of negative blowback on this stupid war, and Cheney talked der Imbicile into pursuing it. And she was cosen today to be the punk. It's all lies.

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 10:30 AM

Bad communication around George W. Bush? That's odd. I mean it's clear to me that he communicates clearly and understands all that's being communicated to him.

Ace, this book picks sides in the old stupid/corrupt debate. This book alleges strongly that Bush is far too stupid to be president. Host argues that he's too corrupt to be president. Either way you go on this one, Bush shouldn't be in the oval office.

host · 05-28-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

There were several things wrong with the war, and I was disappointed by hearing a quote today from Tori Clarke about the whole deal. She's a decent comminicator who worked for the Pentagon and not one to obfuscate the truth. She blasted McClellan as being weak by not arguing against this stupid war and not resigning when it came to loggerheads.

Well, he did, and he did. There was a whole torrent of negative blowback on this stupid war, and Cheney talked der Imbicile into pursuing it. And she was cosen today to be the punk. It's all lies.

IMO, Tori Clarke should be charged and tried as a war criminal:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/bu...=2&oref=slogin

The Origins of the "Message Machine"

Q. In speaking of Torie Clarke, the former Pentagon public relations executive, the article states: "...even before Sept. 11, she built a system within the Pentagon to recruit key influentials -- movers and shakers from all walks who with the proper ministrations might be counted on to generate support for Mr. Rumsfeld's priorities." I'm wondering what Mr. Rumsfeld's priorities were before 9/11, and why was the Pentagon building a network of "influentials" to shape public opinion before 9/11?

— SLOreader, San Luis Obispo, Calif.

A. Ms. Clarke’s team reached out to so-called “key influentials” before Sept. 11 to generate support for a variety of Mr. Rumsfeld’s priorities, including ballistic missile defense and his plan to transform the military into a leaner and more agile force. In her 2006 memoir, "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game," Ms. Clarke wrote: "I was obsessed with reaching out to people who were, in turn, reaching out to thousands and millions on a regular basis." Beyond retired officers, the Pentagon also reached out to a range of leaders -- from religious groups, non-governmental organizations, labor unions and major corporations. But the retired officers received by far the most attention in the years after Sept. 11 because of their impact on the coverage of the war, especially as TV and radio military analysts.

aceventura3 · 05-28-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Bad communication around George W. Bush? That's odd. I mean it's clear to me that he communicates clearly and understands all that's being communicated to him.

Ace, this book picks sides in the old stupid/corrupt debate. This book alleges strongly that Bush is far too stupid to be president. Host argues that he's too corrupt to be president. Either way you go on this one, Bush shouldn't be in the oval office.

I think another possibility, as suggested in the excerpts I have read, is that Bush failed from a PR point of view and more specifically McClellan feels that Bush's advisors failed. He seems to suggest that there were reasons held for going to war that were not communicated openly and honestly. I disagree. I clearly understood our rational for war in Iraq. I clearly heard Bush communicate the rational for war in Iraq.

I think the "stupid" part would apply to those who supported going to war and were against going to war at the same time.

Poppinjay · 05-28-2008, 10:51 AM

I won't get into a defend Tori campaign. I was against this war from day one. Like your post says, the media were highly responsible for the jacked up war. She's a decent person.

aceventura3 · 05-28-2008, 01:40 PM

As I read and listen to the talk show people on this subject it seems to me that we really need to hear from people who were "sold" on the war. I was not, and many were against the war from the beginning and at no point supported the war. There are some people who supported the war because they bought into misinformation who would have otherwise been against the war, these are the people who need to be heard from and can add new insight given the release of this book.

dc_dux · 05-28-2008, 02:35 PM

Edit:
nevermind.....I would only be repeating what has been posted countless times before by myself and others.

ratbastid · 05-28-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I clearly understood our rational for war in Iraq.

Which was, as you've put it here and in other threads, "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."

Which makes sense, in a world where one brown person is pretty much exactly like every other brown person.

Problem is: The "them" we fought in Iraq was a different "them" than we needed to keep from attacking us again. They weren't even friends. Religious differences. No get alongy.

My neighbor punches me in the face, so in response, I burn down the K-Mart two towns over.

What part of this did you "understand"?

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

No get alongy.

Fucking awesome. You win.

hiredgun · 05-28-2008, 08:31 PM

While I guess I'm glad that McLellan gets the chance to unburden his soul to us all, I have to wonder what - besides probably cowardice - was preventing him from giving us this information at a time when it might have made a difference.

ratbastid · 05-29-2008, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

While I guess I'm glad that McLellan gets the chance to unburden his soul to us all, I have to wonder what - besides probably cowardice - was preventing him from giving us this information at a time when it might have made a difference.

Yeah, I wondered that too. I might read this book, if only to answer the question of whether he feels he sold his soul to the devil. From the excerpts ace has posted, it doesn't seem that way.

roachboy · 05-29-2008, 03:52 AM

it's funny, the dominant response from the right about this book:

(a) mclellan says what he says to sell books.
but i thought capitalism was rational in conservative world...an unquestioned good. so how does this not amount to a tautology?

(b) that mclellan is not mclellan ("this is not the scott we knew") but rather some leftist duplicate mclellan who seems to have had something of the same experience as the actual mclellan but who thinks about everything in an entirely different way--perhaps as a function of information the alien mclellan extracted from the actual mclellan via anal probe on the spaceship.

i like that one.

from what i've seen so far--which ain't a whole lot as the book is only just out (or will be this week)--it seems that mclellan's motivations center on the sense of being-chumped by the rove team. bush-the-amiable-dufus is an object of affection and so seems to float around as mclellan's double, nearly--the Other Guy who was Manipulated. mclellan is the dupe who has since come to see--bush the dupe who cannot see---a curious doubling that gets repeated in the "real mclellan" versus the space-alien duplicate mclellan ("the left-wing blogger")...

republicans sometimes make me laugh

aceventura3 · 05-29-2008, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Which was, as you've put it here and in other threads, "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."

Which makes sense, in a world where one brown person is pretty much exactly like every other brown person.

Problem is: The "them" we fought in Iraq was a different "them" than we needed to keep from attacking us again. They weren't even friends. Religious differences. No get alongy.

My neighbor punches me in the face, so in response, I burn down the K-Mart two towns over.

What part of this did you "understand"?

I acknowledge the point of view of those who disagree with our invasion of Iraq. I simply disagree. I do think the arguments against the war in Iraq has valid points. I believe we are going to be better served handling Iraq, terrorism and the ME now rather than in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it's funny, the dominant response from the right about this book:
...
republicans sometimes make me laugh

I am waiting for specifics regarding "lies" about the war. I have not read or heard about any yet, have you?

Poppinjay · 05-29-2008, 07:46 AM

"Mission Accomplished"

Willravel · 05-29-2008, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I acknowledge the point of view of those who disagree with our invasion of Iraq. I simply disagree. I do think the arguments against the war in Iraq has valid points. I believe we are going to be better served handling Iraq, terrorism and the ME now rather than in the future.

I am waiting for specifics regarding "lies" about the war. I have not read or heard about any yet, have you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bush

You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

--WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

No weapons had been found up to that point or since in Iraq.

Tully Mars · 05-29-2008, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

--WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

No weapons had been found up to that point or since in Iraq.

There's (depending on your definition) WMD's in Iraq. We have them on nearly every base.

Willravel · 05-29-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

There's (depending on your definition) WMD's in Iraq. We have them on nearly every base.

Touche?

host · 05-29-2008, 09:25 AM

Is it an act of treason if the president outs a CIA operative, during a time of war, for partisan politcal purposes?

From this am Today Show Video:

msnbc.com Video Player

Quote:

Scott McClellan: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

Scott McClellan: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. <h3>He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/wa...rtner=homepage
Libby a Scapegoat, His Lawyer Tells Jurors

By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: January 23, 2007

.....Mr. Libby, Mr. Wells said, complained to Mr. Cheney that he was being set up as the fall guy. The Vice President supported that view, Mr. Wells said, and wrote a note by hand saying: “Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.”

He offered his interpretation of the note, explaining that “incompetence” was a reference to the fact that the C.I.A. had mistakenly allowed the White House to use inaccurate information in Mr. Bush’s State of the Union speech about Iraq’s efforts to obtain uranium in Africa. The staff official, he said, was Mr. Rove. Mr. Libby had been assigned to speak to reporters to straighten out the confusion from Mr. Bush’s speech, a chore Mr. Cheney likened to sticking his head in the meat grinder.

Mr. Wells did not, however, make it clear how the purported efforts to shield Mr. Rove caused Mr. Libby to become embroiled in the issue, but for suggesting that the attention paid to the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s name obliged Mr. Libby to engage in the perilous task of talking with reporters.....

From Libby's Plame Leak Investigation, Grand Jury testimony....

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/ex.../0306/gx1t.txt
P R O C E E D I N G S
Whereupon,
I. LEWIS LIBBY
was called as a witness and, after first being duly sworn by
the Foreperson of the Grand Jury, was examined and testified
as follows:
<h3>EXAMINATION
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. And Mr. Libby, if you could state your name for the
record and spell your name?
A. I. Lewis, L-e-w-i-s; Libby, L-i-b-b-y.</h3>
Q. And do you have a nickname?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. And that is --
A. "Scooter".
Q. Okay. And can you give us a brief description of
how you got the name "Scooter" so no one spends their time
thinking about that?
A. Are we classified in here? It's -- my family is
from the south and it's less, it's less uncommon than it is up
here.
Q. Okay. Good morning. There's a glass of water in
front of you. That's not from a prior witness, so feel free
to use it.
A. Thank you.
Q. Let me just introduce myself again. My name is Pat
Fitzgerald. I'm a Special Counsel in this matter, joined by
other attorneys with the Special Counsel's Office seated at
the table. And this Grand Jury is investigating possible
offenses of different laws that include Title 50 of the United
States Code, Section 421, which concerns the disclosure of the
identity of a covert agent; Title 18 of the United States
Code, Section 793, which is the illegal transmission of
national defense information; or Title 18, Section 641, theft
of government property; or Title 18 United States Code,
Section 1001, false statements. That means that this Grand
Jury is investigating those offenses. It doesn't mean there's
any determination been made whether or not those offenses have
been committed. I can also tell you that a Grand Jury is
entitled to charge any other offense that they determine has
been committed if they learn about that offense during the
course of this investigation. But generally the investigation
concerns the possible illegal disclosure of classified
information. Do you understand the general nature of the
investigation?
A. I do, sir.
Q. I should tell you that you have a constitutional
right to refuse to answer any question if a truthful answer
would tend to incriminate you. Do you understand that you
have that right?..........

.....Q. -- 59. Does that indicate a meeting between you,
the Vice President and Stephen Hadley?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then down below, is that an attribution, the
first one, to Stephen Hadley?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then "SH", and then it has a colon, and it has
"MCL". Is that referring to McLaughlin?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is that Hadley quoting Deputy Director of
Central Intelligence John McLaughlin?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Colon, quoted GT. Is that McLaughlin quoting George
Tenet?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that you're with the
Vice President --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and Stephen Hadley?
A. Yes.
Q. Hadley is reporting back to you guys what McLaughlin
is saying that George Tenet is saying?
A. Full credit, sir.
Q. Okay. And then during this time you guys are trying
to get Tenet to make a good statement that will sort of take
this issue out and restore the President's credibility?
A. Absolutely, sir.
Q. Fairly tense time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, it says, "Wilson is declassified"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that to you an indication that the report on
Wilson was declassified?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then what does the next sentence say?
A. "We haven't started to declassify NIE." And then
Steve Hadley started to say something which I didn't have time
to write down.
Q. And the next attribution is that Hadley quoting
Condi Rice?
A. Yes, sir.
<h3> Q. Okay. And what does that say?
A. "Spoke to President, he's comfortable."
Q. And does that indicate despite the stress of the
time that the President is okay with -- so far with how things
are going?
A. It's not clear to me what. There's a space missing
there --
Q. Okay.
A. -- and I probably didn't write something down. I
left a space to go back and I probably never got -- I never
got back to it. So -- these things look sort of like a
transcript but they're not really because there could be long
moments when I don't write anything down. So she was saying
the President was comfortable about something, but I don't
know what the antecedent was to --
Q. And the next line?
A. Says -- this is Steve Hadley saying, no question,
it's better if we leak the NIE.
Q. What does that mean?
A. Steve Hadley is saying that it would be better if we
got the NIE out, and "leak" means telling it to -- giving it
to a reporter to say, you know, here's something you can write
about. It's like an exclusive or something like that.
Q. And had the NIE been declassified at that point?
A. It had in the sense that the President had told me
to go out and use it with Judith Miller. I don't, I don't
know that Mr. Hadley knew that at that point.
Q. Okay. And did anyone decide to leak the NIE that
week?
A. Well, the President had told me to use it and
declassified it for me to use with Judith Miller. I don't
think Mr. Hadley was told to go out and talk about it. I
think Ms. Rice had talked about the NIE in general earlier in
the week on television.
Q. And so --
A. Well, some time. I'm not sure when it was.
Q. -- so prior to July 10th you had talked to Judith
Miller about the NIE?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. And your understanding is that even though it was a
classified document the President had authorized you to talk
to her about it?
A. Definitely, sir.
Q. And then -- and do you know if anyone decided to
share the NIE -- did you tell Mr. Hadley at the time that you
had already in effect leaked the NIE by -- with the
President's approval by telling -- Judith Miller?
A. I -- yeah, I don't know if it's leaking once it's
declassified and you're told to do it. I had talked to Judith
Miller about the NIE at the President's, you know, at, at the
President's approval relayed to me through the Vice President,
and I did not tell Mr. Hadley at that time.
Q. And was there any reason why you didn't tell Mr.
Hadley that you had told Ms. Miller about the NIE?
A. I was sitting with the Vice President. The Vice
President knew it and chose not to tell Mr. Hadley and so I
didn't change what he had done.</h3>
Q. Now --
A. And then there's a comment below it from the, from
the Vice President.
Q. Yes?
A. Should I read that for you?
Q. Sure.
A. He says, "anything less than full and complete
disclosure is a serious mistake." And Steve Hadley says, "I
will -- I told that to George Tenet." So the Vice President
is pushing it. He does on a number of these things, get all
of this stuff out. Let's have every -- it's a good story,
tell it all, get all these documents out to the public.
Q. Okay. And I'll deem this marked, and we'll take
back custody of it. Fair to say that you went through the
notes and there's a number of times where the Vice President
during that week has said you need to get everything out?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell the whole story. The whole truth has to get
out. Anything less than that is a big mistake?
A. Yes, sir. That's exactly what we wanted to do.
Q. And that was a constant thing that week?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the Vice President, to be, to be blunt, was
frustrated that it wasn't all getting out there and it wasn't
sort of putting the story to rest, and he was sort of getting
ticked off that we needed to resolve this issue?
A. I'm not sure I would use the word "ticked off", but
he was frustrated. Yes, sir, that's a fair, fair statement.
And this -- the statement from Director Tenet was supposed to
come out -- first it was going to be, I think, Tuesday night,
and then it was going to be Wednesday night. It took a long
time to get this statement out. It was useful when it did
come out, but it took too long to get it out. People were
saying, you know, "get it out".
Q. Now, tell me about the circumstances of your
conversation with Mr. Russert.....

Link to Libby trial document, his notes from July 10, 2003 ,meetng:
http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/fi...10-meeting.pdf

Libby was convicted on four of five counts of perjury and obstruction and sentenced to serve 30 months in federal prison. On July 2, 2007, president Bush commuted Libby's entire prison sentence, before he served even a day in prison.....

Why isn't it now, simply a matter of the House Judiciary Committee demanding an appearance of Scott McClellan, to testify under oath to what he is videotaped saying on the Today Show, this am, and, along with Scooter Libby's sworn testimony above, determining whether or not to form a house impeachment investigatory committee?

Willravel · 05-29-2008, 09:44 AM

Most of the Democrats in Congress, including Speaker Pelosi, have said that they will not pursue impeachment, thereby giving President Bush cart blanche to do what he wants without any real consequences. Even in the light of perfectly damning evidence like you've posted, it seems that this would die on the Senate floor.

I've forwarded information from this post to Boxer and Feinstein, but I don't expect action from either one of them because they're following the majority of their party on this.

host · 05-29-2008, 09:53 AM

Here is more background. The core of the campaign to discredit Joe Wilson was the false allegation that his "CIA wife" had arranged to "send him on a junket". In order to do this, they had to reveal the specifics of Plame's CIA employment and publicize that Plame, as a married, public person, was Valerie Wilson, wife of former diplomat, Joe Wilson.

The potential here, in addition for the unwarranted and unnecessary act of putting Plame in the public eye to "get" her husband and weaken his allegations about the "16 words" in the 2003 SOTU address, is the executive branch obstruction of the Plame leak investigation, and the president's commutation of the prison sentence of his co-conspirator, Libby:

Quote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG3NI70TI1.DTL
Special prosecutor links White House to CIA leak
Fitzgerald says many wanted to undermine administration critic
David E. Sanger, David Johnston, New York Times

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

....Even on Monday, Bush found himself in an uncomfortable spot at a Johns Hopkins University campus in Washington, when a student asked him to address Fitzgerald's assertion that the White House was seeking to retaliate against Wilson.

Bush stumbled as he began his response before settling on an answer that sidestepped the question. He said he had ordered the formal declassification of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in July 2003 because "it was important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I was saying in my speeches" about Iraq's efforts to reconstitute its weapons program.

<h3>Bush said nothing about the earlier, informal authorization that Fitzgerald's filing revealed for the first time.</h3> The prosecutor described testimony from Libby, who said that Bush told Cheney that it was permissible to reveal some of the information in the intelligence estimate, which described Hussein's efforts to acquire uranium.

But Monday, Bush was not talking about that. "You're just going to have to let Mr. Fitzgerald complete his case, and I hope you understand that," Bush said. "It's a serious legal matter that we've got to be careful in making public statements about it."

It is now clear that Fitzgerald's account of what was happening in the White House that summer of 2003 is very different from the Bush administration's narrative, which suggested that Wilson was regarded as a minor figure whose criticisms could be answered by simply disclosing the underlying intelligence upon which Bush relied.

It turned out that much of the information about Hussein's search for uranium was questionable at best, and it became the subject of dispute almost as soon as it was included in the intelligence estimate in 2002.

The answer to the question of whose recounting of events is correct -- Bush's or Fitzgerald's -- may not be known for months or years, if ever. But it seems certain that there will be more clues to come, including some about the conversations between Bush and Cheney.

Fitzgerald said he was preparing to disclose to the defense 1,400 pages of notes -- some presumably in Libby's own hand -- that could shed light on two very different efforts at getting out the White House story.

One of those efforts -- the July 18 declassification of the major conclusions of the intelligence estimate -- was taking place in public; <h3>another, Fitzgerald argues, was happening in secret, with only Bush, Cheney, and Libby involved.</h3>

Up until now, we have only the testimony of a later convicted perjurer, Libby. This morning, Libby's testimony was publicly corroborated by the man who the white house claimed, spoke for them, officially, as their designtated, chief spokesperson, every day for three years!

Willravel · 05-29-2008, 09:55 AM

What can be done to convince more Senate Democrats that impeachment is a viable option?

host · 05-29-2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

What can be done to convince more Senate Democrats that impeachment is a viable option?

Public outrage....but check the "new posts", there is more interest at TFP in discussing the naming of "pee pee parts", than there is in anything like official corruption at the highest level, and how to confront it and stop it.

Go figure....

It's all the more curious, because the core TFP membership seems to be made up of folks who either have friends in the military, or have considered joining themselves. I would think there would be more interest, because of this. If the government and the CIC aren't credible, how and why would anyone sign a contract with it/them, to serve?

Cynthetiq · 05-29-2008, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Public outrage....but check the "new posts", there is more interest at TFP in discussing the naming of "pee pee parts", than there is in anything like official corruption at the highest level, and how to confront it and stop it.

Go figure....

It's all the more curious, because the core TFP membership seems to be made up of folks who either have friends in the military, or have considered joining themselves. I would think there would be more interest, because of this. If the government and the CIC aren't credible, how and why would anyone sign a contract with it/them, to serve?

actually it's more simple than that host, I don't know why it is such a head scratcher to you.

follow Occam's razor and look at the logo

it doesn't say Humanity, Sexuality, Philosophy, and Politics.

aceventura3 · 05-29-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Public outrage....but check the "new posts", there is more interest at TFP in discussing the naming of "pee pee parts", than there is in anything like official corruption at the highest level, and how to confront it and stop it.

Go figure....

There are other threads on this topic. If you added all the views and comments on this topic, I think you would see that you are wrong. Generally, I think we are waiting for something new.

I thought it was resolved that there is agreement that the WH was involved in outing Plame and they did it to discredit her husband. I think the WH is giving a big "so what" to Congress on this and a few other issues. I thought it was also resolved that congressional leaders lacked the courage to really confront Bush and perform to the level of their responsibility as defined in the Constitution to serve as a check and balance to the executive branch. We certainly understood that when Republicans controlled Congress, but now? We find that Democrats are mostly talk.

host · 05-29-2008, 10:46 AM

Here's the first, hopefully, of many more to come:

Quote:

http://www.wexler.house.gov/apps/lis...srelease.shtml
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 28, 2008 Contact: Josh Rogin
Phone: (202) 225-3001

Wexler: McClellan Must Testify Under Oath Before House Judiciary Committee
Former White House Aide's Revelations Make Out Case for Obstruction of Justice by Rove and Libby in Valerie Plame Case
(Washington, DC) Today Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) called for former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify under oath regarding the devastating revelations made in his new book on the Bush Administration’s deliberate efforts to mislead the American people into the Iraq War.

“The admissions made by Scott McClellan in his new book are earth-shattering and allege facts to establish that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby – and possibly Vice President Cheney - conspired to obstruct justice by lying about their role in the Plame Wilson matter and that the Bush Administration deliberately lied to the American people in order to take us to war in Iraq. Scott McClellan must now appear before the House Judiciary Committee under oath to tell Congress and the American people how President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and White House officials deliberately orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people.”

“The allegations by this former top White House aide – that Rove and Libby deliberately coordinated their stories in order to obstruct justice in the Plame case, that the President deliberately disregarded contradictory evidence related to Iraq, should outrage every American and Congress must respond by initiating immediate aggressive oversight starting with an appearance by McClellan before the House Judiciary Committee. Any continued obstruction by this Administration to prevent White House officials from appearing before Congress cannot be tolerated by this Congress in the face of these shocking revelations.”

<i>Congressman Wexler has led a nationwide campaign in favor of holding impeachment hearings for Vice-President Dick Cheney. Congressman Wexler is Chairman of the Europe Subcommittee and a senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House Judiciary Committee.</i>

aceventura3 · 05-29-2008, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Here's the first, hopefully, of many more to come:

My guess is that McClellan's statements will prove to be hyperbole. If I were a Democratic leader in Congress, I would be careful, McClellan may prove to be an embarrassment to himself and to anyone who holds his book as proof that Bush lied.

Willravel · 05-29-2008, 11:02 AM

His language doesn't suggest hyperbole.

aceventura3 · 05-29-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

--WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

No weapons had been found up to that point or since in Iraq.

George Tenet, Director of the CIA, approved Powell's speech to the UN. Either the intelligence was wrong or Tenet lied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

"Mission Accomplished"

I am not sure what the point is, but if you are mocking Bush, I get it. However, there were two phases to the Iraq war. One was the invasion and overthrow of Saddam. The second is the occupation. The first mission was accomplished with ease, the soldiers who accomplished that deserved recognition.

ratbastid · 05-29-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I acknowledge the point of view of those who disagree with our invasion of Iraq. I simply disagree.

The fact that Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Al Qaeda and had ZERO to do with 9/11 or any other attack on US interests is NOT a point of view. Regarding "terror", he was an innocent bystander. Brutal to Iraq's internal opposition, to be sure. Made a big mistake in Kuwait, which lost him the friendship of the Bush family and their cronies. But in NO way related to those who we need to "fight there so we don't have to fight here". Zero, none, zilch, zip. No connection. Unrelated.

The "point of view" that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with terrorism is a point of view that I acknowledge as a point of view, and respectfully assert is based on faulty information fed by an administration eager to sell an illegal war.

aceventura3 · 05-29-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

His language doesn't suggest hyperbole.

I am not planning on buying the book, but I look forward to the citations that come from the book proving the recent quotes made public about "lies" or whatever he calls them. As soon as you get some, please share.

host · 05-29-2008, 11:19 AM

ace, Bush was citing the trailers as fact, at the end of May, 2003, after they were found and inspected. Powell was repeating the already discredited gibberish from "curvebal", in Powell's Feb, 3, 2003 UN presentation:

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A9659C8B63
Some Analysts Of Iraq Trailers Reject Germ Use

By JUDITH MILLER AND WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: June 7, 2003

....The Bush administration has said the two trailers, which allied forces found in Iraq in April and May, are evidence that Saddam Hussein was hiding a program for biological warfare. In a white paper last week, it publicly detailed its case, even while conceding discrepancies in the evidence and a lack of hard proof.

Now, intelligence analysts stationed in the Middle East, as well as in the United States and Britain, are disclosing serious doubts about the administration's conclusions in what appears to be a bitter debate within the intelligence community. Skeptics said their initial judgments of a weapon application for the trailers had faltered as new evidence came to light.

Bill Harlow, a spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency, said the dissenters ''are entitled to their opinion, of course, but we stand behind the assertions in the white paper.''

In all, at least three teams of Western experts have now examined the trailers and evidence from them. While the first two groups to see the trailers were largely convinced that the vehicles were intended for the purpose of making germ agents, the third group of more senior analysts divided sharply over the function of the trailers, with several members expressing strong skepticism, some of the dissenters said.....

....At the recent summit meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Bush cited the trailers as evidence of illegal Iraqi arms. .....

Willravel · 05-29-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

George Tenet, Director of the CIA, approved Powell's speech to the UN. Either the intelligence was wrong or Tenet lied.

Maybe I should frame this differently. You like the free market, right?

Let's say I run PR for Pfizer. Everything is going fine. I make occasional statements on behalf of the company to the press regarding this and that. A particular Pfizer product, an antidepressant, starts causing the rather alarming side effect of cerebral hemorrhage, and it's a common side effect. The company either does bullshit research to cover their ass or is grossly incompetent and find no such link in their research. I go on TV and say "Pfizer isn't killing anyone". Well, Pfizer actually is killing people. Wouldn't that make me a liar?

In his state of the Union in January of 2003, Bush has said that Iraq had 500 tons of chemical weapons including sarin, mustard and vx; he said they had upwards of 300,000 chemical weapons; he said they aid and protect terrorists including al Qaeda; he said Iraq had attempted to purchase metal tubes for nukes; he said that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa.

All of these claims are completely false.

aceventura3 · 05-29-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The fact that Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Al Qaeda and had ZERO to do with 9/11 or any other attack on US interests is NOT a point of view.

I agree that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. However, Saddam was an enemy of the US. Saddam was an on-going threat to peace in the ME.

Quote:

Regarding "terror", he was an innocent bystander. Brutal to Iraq's internal opposition, to be sure. Made a big mistake in Kuwait, which lost him the friendship of the Bush family and their cronies. But in NO way related to those who we need to "fight there so we don't have to fight here". Zero, none, zilch, zip. No connection. Unrelated.

The people we need to fight are fighting us in Iraq. Those who most need to stand with us against terror are taking a stand with us in Irag. I would never use the word "innocent" regarding Saddam.

Quote:

The "point of view" that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with terrorism is a point of view that I acknowledge as a point of view, and respectfully assert is based on faulty information fed by an administration eager to sell an illegal war.

People not in the administration had the same view of Saddam as Bush. Two were the Clintons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, Bush was citing the trailers as fact, at the end of May, 2003, after they were found and inspected. Powell was repeating the already discredited gibberish from "curvebal", in Powell's Feb, 3, 2003 UN presentation:

You think Bush did the intelligence work and feed it to Tenet? Or was it the CIA and Tenet who feed that information to Bush? Or do you think Bush made Tenet approve the faulty intelligence that he knew was wrong? I am not clear on your view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Maybe I should frame this differently. You like the free market, right?

Let's say I run PR for Pfizer. Everything is going fine. I make occasional statements on behalf of the company to the press regarding this and that. A particular Pfizer product, an antidepressant, starts causing the rather alarming side effect of cerebral hemorrhage, and it's a common side effect. The company either does bullshit research to cover their ass or is grossly incompetent and find no such link in their research. I go on TV and say "Pfizer isn't killing anyone". Well, Pfizer actually is killing people. Wouldn't that make me a liar?

Yes.

Quote:

In his state of the Union in January of 2003, Bush has said that Iraq had 500 tons of chemical weapons including sarin, mustard and vx; he said they had upwards of 300,000 chemical weapons; he said they aid and protect terrorists including al Qaeda; he said Iraq had attempted to purchase metal tubes for nukes; he said that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa.

All of these claims are completely false.

There is a difference between communicating false information that you think is correct and communicating false information you know is false.

If McClellan has proof showing Bush knew the intelligence was false, Bush is a lier.

Willravel · 05-29-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am not planning on buying the book, but I look forward to the citations that come from the book proving the recent quotes made public about "lies" or whatever he calls them. As soon as you get some, please share.

The information you seek is already provided above:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott McClellan

He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.

05-28-2008, 03:30 AM	#2 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I'm a little shocked he, or anyone else, would write and release such a book while Bush is still a sitting POTUS. I give it 30 sec. before the right start calling him a liar, a gold digger, a traitor and just about every other "evil" term they can think up. Turned on the Boob tube (they really should have more actual "boobs" on there) and the "Morning Joe" gang was stating "if all of what he's saying is true why didn't he say something at the time?" Gee I dunno? Maybe because he was the press sec. and not an adviser? Information flows to him not the other way around. It begins and by the end of the week he'll be deemed worthy of a mental commitment by the right. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

05-28-2008, 07:57 AM	#3 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	My thought about if the war was necessary or not - the answer depends on one's perspective. On one hand, we decided to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Our decision to invade was preemptive and the timing was our choice. From that perspective I can see how one can conclude the war was unnecessary. On the other hand, we had been in a undeclared war long before our invasion of Iraq against an enemy that had declared war on the US. Iraq is a key strategic point in the war against terror and removing Saddam Hussein served two purposes. In this regard I see our invasion of Iraq as a part of our broader war on terror, and that the invasion was a part of a military strategy that will prove to be successful or a failure. Given the two choices of fighting a defensive war or an offensive war on an enemy who has declared war on the US, I would choose an offensive war and I do see fighting the war as necessary, defensively or offensively. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 05-28-2008 at 08:00 AM..

05-28-2008, 09:07 AM	#5 (permalink)
host Banned	ace, you're not debating me on this, your task now is to refute the claims of the former white house press secretary, that the war was unnecessary. To give you some insight into the pitfalls of disagreeing with the man who was the public voice of the white house, here are the three network news anchors responding on TV this am, to McClellans accusations that one of the reasons an unneccessary war happened, was their compliant reaction to the Bush administration's propaganda: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24855902/ If Bush, himself, said the the things Scott McClellan is saying, would Bush saying that the urgency and justification for invasion was contrved, and thus, the war was unnecessary, even sway your opinion? I think we are down to one of two possibilities, now. Either your opinion is immovable, or only the public admission by Bush that mcClellan is correct, would influence you to change your mind. There is <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article537580.ece">news reporting</a> that throughout 2002, the US and UK conducted a large unpublicized aerial bombardment campaign against targets in Iraq to soften Iraqi defenses against an invasion. I cannot find a formal declaration of war by Iraq against the US and I cannot find a preinvasion justification for war made by our president or VP that cites Iraq's declaration of war against the US. You posted that the US chose to fight an offensive war. If as you claim, Iraq declared war against the US, wouldn't the US invasion be a defensive response? What is the difference between offensive war and war of aggression? Last edited by host; 05-28-2008 at 09:40 AM..

05-28-2008, 10:30 AM	#7 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	There were several things wrong with the war, and I was disappointed by hearing a quote today from Tori Clarke about the whole deal. She's a decent comminicator who worked for the Pentagon and not one to obfuscate the truth. She blasted McClellan as being weak by not arguing against this stupid war and not resigning when it came to loggerheads. Well, he did, and he did. There was a whole torrent of negative blowback on this stupid war, and Cheney talked der Imbicile into pursuing it. And she was cosen today to be the punk. It's all lies. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

05-28-2008, 10:51 AM	#11 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I won't get into a defend Tori campaign. I was against this war from day one. Like your post says, the media were highly responsible for the jacked up war. She's a decent person. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

05-28-2008, 08:29 AM	#4 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	My God, ace... You've drunk the kool-aid so thoroughly on this one, I despair of us ever having a rational conversation about it. Suffice to say, "we" didn't invade Iraq to remove Hussein from power--that rationale was invented after the fact, when there were no WMDs to be found. And Iraq had nothing to do with this alleged "enemy who had declared war on the US". Those people were also Iraq's enemies. And Iraq was only part of the "broader war on terror" if you can invent WMDs and yellow cake uranium purchases, which didn't exist OR happen. So, if it's not those three things, why DO you think we initially went to war? I don't think we'll ever know the REAL reason that the Administration decided to gallop us into this war, but I know what I suspect their reasons were. I suspect their reasons had to do with enriching their military-industrial cronies, their ability to use war to railroad through agenda items at the expense of civil liberties, and their "legacy" as a war presidency.

05-28-2008, 10:30 AM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Bad communication around George W. Bush? That's odd. I mean it's clear to me that he communicates clearly and understands all that's being communicated to him. Ace, this book picks sides in the old stupid/corrupt debate. This book alleges strongly that Bush is far too stupid to be president. Host argues that he's too corrupt to be president. Either way you go on this one, Bush shouldn't be in the oval office.

05-28-2008, 01:40 PM	#12 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	As I read and listen to the talk show people on this subject it seems to me that we really need to hear from people who were "sold" on the war. I was not, and many were against the war from the beginning and at no point supported the war. There are some people who supported the war because they bought into misinformation who would have otherwise been against the war, these are the people who need to be heard from and can add new insight given the release of this book. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-28-2008, 02:35 PM	#13 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Edit: nevermind.....I would only be repeating what has been posted countless times before by myself and others. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-29-2008 at 06:31 AM..

05-28-2008, 08:31 PM	#16 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	While I guess I'm glad that McLellan gets the chance to unburden his soul to us all, I have to wonder what - besides probably cowardice - was preventing him from giving us this information at a time when it might have made a difference.

05-29-2008, 03:52 AM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it's funny, the dominant response from the right about this book: (a) mclellan says what he says to sell books. but i thought capitalism was rational in conservative world...an unquestioned good. so how does this not amount to a tautology? (b) that mclellan is not mclellan ("this is not the scott we knew") but rather some leftist duplicate mclellan who seems to have had something of the same experience as the actual mclellan but who thinks about everything in an entirely different way--perhaps as a function of information the alien mclellan extracted from the actual mclellan via anal probe on the spaceship. i like that one. from what i've seen so far--which ain't a whole lot as the book is only just out (or will be this week)--it seems that mclellan's motivations center on the sense of being-chumped by the rove team. bush-the-amiable-dufus is an object of affection and so seems to float around as mclellan's double, nearly--the Other Guy who was Manipulated. mclellan is the dupe who has since come to see--bush the dupe who cannot see---a curious doubling that gets repeated in the "real mclellan" versus the space-alien duplicate mclellan ("the left-wing blogger")... republicans sometimes make me laugh __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-29-2008, 07:46 AM	#20 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	"Mission Accomplished" __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

05-29-2008, 09:44 AM	#25 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Most of the Democrats in Congress, including Speaker Pelosi, have said that they will not pursue impeachment, thereby giving President Bush cart blanche to do what he wants without any real consequences. Even in the light of perfectly damning evidence like you've posted, it seems that this would die on the Senate floor. I've forwarded information from this post to Boxer and Feinstein, but I don't expect action from either one of them because they're following the majority of their party on this.

05-29-2008, 09:55 AM	#27 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	What can be done to convince more Senate Democrats that impeachment is a viable option?

05-29-2008, 11:02 AM	#33 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	His language doesn't suggest hyperbole.