Tuesday, June 03, 2008

McClellan Schools Oreilly

video

This is absolutely nuts. If you watch this you will see that Scott McClellan easily refutes every one of Bill Oreilly's fake outrage laden talking points with simple facts that Oreilly has no comeback for. Oreilly is fully committed to being outraged at McClellan's book, but can't find a valid reason why despite trying his best to manufacture one.

31 comments:

upinVermont said...

At the White House, the band plays on, all of courtiers telling George exactly what he wants to hear. Meanwhile, the rest of the thieves and liars fall at each others throats- McClellan and O'reilly. I didn't see McClellan standing up to O'reilly all that well. McClellan is still blaming Bush without blaming Bush.

He didn't lie, McClellan says. It's just that everybody lies in this business. Ergo, if everybody lies, then nobody lies. Get it? Bush & Co. are all honest men who were swept into a corrupt system. It's the system that's corrupt, not the men. Does this rationalization sound at all, familiar? As long as McClellan keeps dancing on the hid of pin, people like O'reilly are going to make fools of him.

Anonymous said...

people like O'Reilly are going to make fools of him}:-

Anonymous said...

“Well, why all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner?
This is one and a half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had.”

“All of a sudden, he comes out with a book that he is seeking to promote. He is actively going out there and putting himself on prime-time news and morning shows to promote his book. And he is making charges that simply did not happen.”

Quotes from Dana Perino? Nope. These quotes are from Scott McClellan, 3-22-04, bashing former counter-terrorism aide Richard Clarke’s whiny book about the Bush admins. “lack of serious planning against terrorist attacks.” Hmm. We haven’t been attacked since 9-11, so we can easily see Clarke’s point. Not. However, I can understand McClellan’s indignance at Clarke’s book. After all, an honorable man knows what to do when he believes the president is lying about something as serious as the need for war. An honorable man quits his job rather than be complicit in fatal fraud, stops the lie in it’s tacks and heads straight for the mainstream press.
Did McClellan do that? Nooooooo. He played the bumbling, inept spokesman as long as it lasted and continued dipping his snout into the Whitehouse trough until the last possible moment.
Then when nobody could even remember his name, he gets a $75k advance to write his smear.
He had a gift for non-communication, which he continued to unleash in his new tell-nada book, which apparently said little to nothing beyond miscellaneous facts such as Cheney and Rove having SECRET MEETINGS (gasp) and how he was most always left out of the loop (boo-hoo).
What he didn’t mention is that even while he was Whitehouse press secretary, he was continually dissed by his peers.

Adding to the humiliation of being an inarticulate buffoon in front of the natl. media were the incessant characterizations of McClellan as a loser . Michael Wolff wrote of him in Vanity Fair
that he seemed to have “some terrible social disability,” and had become a “kick-me archetype” in the press briefing room. Wolff continues, “He’s Piggy in the ‘Lord Of The Flies’: a living victim whose reason for being is apparently to shoulder ridicule and pain (or come to think of it, he’s Squealer from ‘Animal Farm’). However, unlike Piggy, McClellan turned out to be wrong. It would be easy to feel sorry for him, at least until he wrote his book. Now he is no longer a media retard. He got EVEN! No more Mr.Kick-me! Now he is king of the bully pulpit, and all he had to do was switch sides and say what the majority of the sheeple already believe.

So ends the political life of the little boy who squealed all the way home, who may wind up with no title after all because no matter how sweet the revenge, on the playground, a snitch is trusted by no one.

Aaron said...

Why does everyone have to be anonymous?

John Stewart called him on it. McClellan won't use the word "lie" but he uses every conceivable string of letters that are synonymous with it. I am reading his book now, and the same point comes again and again. He is very straightforward about his criticism, but keeps saying that Bush was "caught up in the continual campaign of washington". Fine, but this is not an excuse for lying, which he clearly did, repeatedly.

As for Oreilly, you can see him intentionally trying his best to conflate the significance of chemical weapons with nuclear weapons, calling them all WMD and hoping his audience is too fucking stupid, drunk, or neoconservative to realize that chemical weapons don't constitute the same grave and immanent danger to the U.S. as nuclear, and nuclear is what McClellan was referring to. Oreilly quickly changes the subject when he realizes he's lost that point, and then gets even more angry in order to try to cover up the fact he has just been utterly shut down and made to look like an idiot to anyone who is even partially paying attention. That's the best you can do against Oreilly, or he'll cut off your Mic. I was very impressed that Sotty didn't let himself get railroaded by that cowardly little prick.

Anonymous said...

McClellan is proven to be the cowardly little prick. O'Reilly is creator/host of the #1 cable tv news talk show whose ratings beat all the competition combined, which I'm sure to you is nothing compared to journalistic giants such as Jon Stewart, the sometimes funny comedian whose producers use laugh tracks.

Nukes vs. bioweapons?
Saddam killed 250,000 Kurds with VX nerve gas (a WMD)in one day.
Yea sure, we don't have to worry about any of that.

Aaron said...

The Iraq war was waged for one major reason- to set up a base in the middle east and to spread democracy. Saddam was not feared, and nobody thought he was an immediate threat to the U.S. If we did, there would have been widespread concern before 9/11. Lies were used to sell the war. The plan failed dramatically. Now it is a haven for terrorism, a unifying point for terrorist organizations, a humanitarian nightmare, and a prime opportunity for Iran to exert influence. neocon cheerleaders continue to lie to themselves in order to save face, pretending that they were right all along when every obvious fact flies in their face.

upinVermont said...

//McClellan is proven to be the cowardly little prick. //

One thing McClellan is *not*, is a coward. I happen to think he's mincing words, but the guy put his neck on the chopping block and did it for the right reasons.

Cowardice is hiding behind anonymity on a blog that has a readership of, let's see... 2?, maybe 3 at best? Now *that's* cowardice.

Anonymous said...

If Mr. Aaron believes we are in Iraq merely to "spread Democracy," he is more uninformed than he appears.

Vermont says "the guy [McClellan] put his neck on the chopping block and did it for the right reasons."

Money is ALWAYS the right reason.

"Anonymous" is simply a choice offered on your blog, and the one I prefer. Despite the continuous glut of low grade emotion here, I am still looking for the "comedy" you advertise in the header. I haven't seen any at all,
just a lot of sarcasm, even unabashed hate. What's so funny about that?

Anonymous said...

You people are making the Iraq war more complicated than it is. The books I have read about it (written mostly by intelligence operatives sent there) conclude it was a lose-lose situation for the Bush admin. It all boiled down to a decision to take Saddam out or leave him in power, and the decision HAD to be made. It's really sad that we seem to gain so much pleasure from crucifying our leaders for doing their job, which apparently the millions of armchair generals out there feel they could do much better. What is even more odd is that Bush is blamed for a war which the vast majority of congress voted for, even the by the ones who voted against it before they voted for it, then against it again, except for Obama, who has voted "present" 130 times. Now THAT'S a guy who knows how to make a decision!

upinVermont said...

//Vermont says "the guy [McClellan] put his neck on the chopping block and did it for the right reasons."

Money is ALWAYS the right reason.//

A.) "Yesterday, MoveOn launched a petition calling on former White House press secretary Scott McClellan to donate the proceeds from his new book to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This morning on NBC’s Meet the Press, McClellan promised to give a portion of the profits to these men and women."

To paraphrase another commenter, this is a damned sight more than anyone else in the Bush administration has done.

B.) Focusing on McClellan is vintage spin. The issue isn't McClellan, it's what he wrote about an administration & President willing to lie & cheat this country into a failed war.


//Despite the continuous glut of low grade emotion here, I am still looking for the "comedy" you advertise in the header. I haven't seen any at all,
just a lot of sarcasm, even unabashed hate. What's so funny about that?//

I don't know why Aaron doesn't delete your posts. All you do is spit vitriol; and that's about as far as your ability to discuss an issue goes. When you don't get your way, you call everyone names...

upinVermont said...

//You people are making the Iraq war more complicated than it is.//

Hardly. You haven't noticed that the justification for this war has changed on an almost, sometimes, weekly basis? How many rationalizations has Bush given us?


//It all boiled down to a decision to take Saddam out or leave him in power, and the decision HAD to be made.//

Right. He made a bad decision and lied to get us there. That's what we're talking about.

//It's really sad that we seem to gain so much pleasure from crucifying our leaders for doing their job, which apparently the millions of armchair generals out there feel they could do much better.//

Better that "We the People" crucify our leaders than that they crucify us and our Constitution.

And Who said anything about taking pleasure? These are your words, not mine. And Bush was *not* doing his job. Congress was *not* doing their job. Read the Constitution. If they *had* been, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

Lastly, if "our leaders" don't want to be scrutinized, then they shouldn't be "our leaders". We don't live in North Korea. Is that what you would prefer?

//What is even more odd is that Bush is blamed for a war which the vast majority of congress voted for, even the by the ones who voted against it before they voted for it...//

1.) This doesn't excuse Bush.

2.) I have never made the argument that Congress wasn't also culpable.

Anonymous said...

I don't know why Aaron doesn't delete your posts. All you do is spit vitriol; and that's about as far as your ability to discuss an issue goes. When you don't get your way, you call everyone names...


Wow. I must've "stepped on a nerve"
Do you mean I "call everyone names"
the way Aaron does like when he called O'Reilly a "cowardly little prick" or like the way you spit vitriol at Bush et al on a regular basis. Why can't you admit your hatred of him? I would respect you for at least being honest. You can sure dish it out, but you can't take it at all!

Aaron said...

I think that 25% of the U.S. would be perfectly content voting in a conservative republican dictator. These same people seem perfectly content with a handful of leaders deciding to mislead an entire country with lies to do something they already had planned to do, and then continue to make excuses for them when the plan fails. The rest of us our outraged.

upinVermont said...

//like the way you spit vitriol at Bush et al on a regular basis.//

Here's the difference, Mike. When I call Bush a liar, I back up what I write with examples. You? All you do is write sarcastic little one liners and denigrate me and Aaron. That seems to be all your capable of. Why not try defending Bush? Think you're capable of it? Try it. Give it your best shot.


//Why can't you admit your hatred of him?//

Calling him the worst President ever to hold the office; calling him incompetent, narrow minded, incurious, arrogant, and shallow is not the same as "hatred". Again, why don't you try defending Bush instead of all this rubbish about me and Aaron?


//I would respect you...//

You don't get it do you? Remember how this conversation started? It was about McClellan. Does that ring a bell - or do you still need to obsess about me & Aaron?

McClellan.

McClellan wrote that Bush, Rove & Cheney dragged us into a needless war by manipulating intelligence, manipulative propaganda and spin. If you think he's wrong, then why? Based on what? If you think Bush is the greatest President ever, they why? If you think Republicans are the greatest party ever, they why?

Do you even know what a true conservative is? I don't think you do.

Anonymous said...

I seem to be the only one in the world who "spits vitriol" as evidenced from your abandoned Secular NDE list where people were encouraged to "shoot the message, not the messenger."


Post #2078 Where is Michael Gilmore when you need to make fun of him?

Post #1237As if I care what Mike thinks. These types of people are
so scared and insecure that they can't afford to think clearly about
much of anything.

Post #722 As for Mike- he's a joke within a joke; A pawn of
fanatical brain dead political ideology /snip/ he is utterly
brainwashed. You tell that punk assed political freak show....

Post #1241 With Mike, shit, he thinks anyone with even the slightest
inkling of a thought which can not be termed "conservative" can be
described as "mentally ill".

Post #1058 (to Linda Stewart) what sort of holier than thou point
are you trying to illustrate other than your rampant hyopocrisy?

Anonymous said...

If you think Bush is the greatest President ever, they why? If you think Republicans are the greatest party ever, they why?

Where do you GET this crap? I never said anything LIKE this! I simply get tired of people who think bashing Bush is some kind of political accomplishment when it is actually juvenile and boring.
Even Christopher Hitchens knows that.
But I WILL defend Bush to the likes of you people, so try these on.
1.If the war wasn't in currently Iraq, it would be here. Where do you want it? And if we werent there, Iran would be. What the hell do you think the 8 year Iran-Iraq war was about?
2. Why haven't we been attacked here since 9-11? Because of Al Franken?
Oh yea, good thing McClellan is going to give some pocket change to Moveon.org since George Soros can't cough up any real bucks. LOL!

upinVermont said...

Sure Mike,

What's your point? I didn't write these. Are they Aaron's? I have no clue.

Anyway, what do you care what people write about you? Grow up. Look at everything that's been written about me -- including your own contributions.

I invited you to defend Bush. You still haven't. You still aren't.

What about McClellan?

You have yet to defend Bush or his associates in any way, shape or form. This is my gripe with you. Do you, or do you not, have something *constructive* to *add* about the post? That's what these comments are for.

upinVermont said...

//f you think Bush is the greatest President ever....

Where do you GET this crap? I never said anything LIKE this!//

I didn't say you had. I said "If you think..."

//I simply get tired of people who think bashing Bush is some kind of political accomplishment//

I don't bash Bush. I disagree with his policies and decisions. I see the tremendous harm they have done because others are reporting the tremendous harm they have done - such as McClellan. I voice my opinion. Just because *you* don't like my opinion, buddy, doesn't make it "bashing".


//1.If the war wasn't in currently Iraq, it would be here.//

It's ironic that you would start with this, since this is exactly the sort of spin McClellan dismisses in his book. There is zero evidence to support the notion that the war would be here if it weren't in Iraq because: We weren't attacked by any Iraqis on 911. Saddam Hussein had virtually zero contact with al-Qa’ida. So many intelligence officials and authors on the subject have confirmed this that the burden of proof is clearly with Bush supporters; and they have offered none. In fact, your assertion was recently discredited by the Senate Intelligence Committee Report. And, in fact, all intelligence estimates now assert that there are *more* terrorists in the region as a result of our occupation, not less. So, in a nutshell, if we weren't warring in Iraq, there would be *less* threat from terrorism, not more.

//And if we werent there, Iran would be.//

Right, and that's the reason we never should have occupied. However, there is little evidence to suggest that Iran could simply "take over" Iraq. They are different people, different ethnicities, different religions. Iran would get just as bogged down as the United States.

Last of all, your assertion is a tacit admission that Bush's occupation of Iraq has greatly strengthened Iran within its own region.

//What the hell do you think the 8 year Iran-Iraq war was about?//

I could ask the same question. Given that war, what makes you think the Iranians are simply going to waltz into Iraq once we leave? No, if they tried that, they would end up in the same quick sand we are stuck in. Iran does *not* want us to leave Iraq. It's in their interest to keep us there.

//2. Why haven't we been attacked here since 9-11?//

Because of intelligence measures, not because of our occupation of Iraq. Remember, none of the 911 terrorists were from Iraq. They were mostly from Saudi Arabia.


//Oh yea, good thing McClellan is going to give some pocket change to Moveon.org since George Soros can't cough up any real bucks. LOL!//

Right. Still attacking McClellan rather than his arguments?

Aaron said...

Those sound like my quotes Mike, which I still fully stand by.

Your bullshit about Iraq is the same as all your other talking points about GW and evolution- you start with a position and then try to fit facts into what you want believe.

It must give you pause that there are very few people left who would agree with you. I don't feel the slightest bit urged to combat the rehearsed talking points you spew from your A.M. KDNIL radio Station or whatever it is you sleep too- they've been crushed overwhelmingly many times elsewhere.

I suppose you think Roger Clemmens didn't take steroids too. Just a wild guess because this politically irrelevent issue fell on party lines and that was the republican stance. Mike-1 Free will-0.

Anonymous said...

Aug 20, 2006 Writer/author Christopher Hitchens gave the finger to
the Los Angeles studio audience of HBO's "Real Time With Bill
Maher." As he laid out the case for how it's Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who wants World War Three, not George W. Bush,
Hitchens cited how Ahmadinejad "says the Messiah is about to come
back." Maher quipped: "So does George Bush, by the way." That caused
a loud eruption of audience applause and cheering, which led Maher to
clarify: "That's not facetious." The crowd continued to applaud as
Hitchens remarked, about those in attendance who had earlier cheered
and laughed as Maher called Bush an "idiot" repeatedly: "That's not
facetious. Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is
frivolous." Loud oohs and groans emanated from the audience,
prompting Hitchens to give them the finger as he castigated
them, "Fuck you, fuck you," while the groans continued. (Transcript
follows)

Hitchens: "Who wants a Third Word War? The Iranian President says
that one member state of the United Nations should be wiped
physically from the map with all its people. He says the United
States is a Satanic power. Members of his government, named members
of his government have been caught sponsoring deaths squads. He's
lied, he's lied to the European Union about his nuclear program-"

Maher: "But you know that a lot-"

Hitchens: "He says the Messiah is about to come back. Who's looking
for a war here?"

Maher: "So does George Bush, by the way [audience applause]. That's
not facetious [audience applause continues]."

Hitchens: "That's not facetious. Your audience, which will clap at
apparently anything, is frivolous. [oohs and groans from audience,
Hitchens gives them the finger] Fuck you, fuck you. [groans continue]"

Maher: "I was just saying what the President of Iran and the
President of America have in common is that they both are a little
too comfortable with the idea of the world coming to an end."

Hitchens: "Cheer yourself up like that. The President has said, quite
a great contrast before the podium of the Senate, I think applauded
by most present, in his State of the Union address, that we support
the democratic movement of the Iranian people to be free of
theocracy -- not that we will impose ourselves on them, but that if
they fight for it we're on their side. That seems to be the right
position to take, jeer all you like.

Aaron said...

yYes, I've seen the episode before. Hitchens holds a very unpopular position on the Iraq war for someone who is not a wingnut. There are a few still left who hold this line, probably to save face. The error comes in thinking that we can transform these people through hostile takeover. It's a naive notion. If I could snap my fingers and oust saddam I would. If I knew it would kill over 1 million Iraqis, thousands of Americans, cost trillions of dollars, last interminably, leave the country in political chaos, probably end in a blood bath of incomprehensible proportions,
and bolster Iran and other terrorist regimes, while distracting us from domestic issues
I'd think twice. You wouldn't?
I certainly wouldn't be proud of defending these policies like you pretend to be.

Anonymous said...

The 'point of posting Aarons comments' is to prove that name calling and "spitting vitriol" is not just about "cowardly little pricks" like me throwing peanuts at two neocommie monkeys in a cage, but that such discourse is merely the status quo here. Aaron also said about my position that "It must give you pause that there are very few people left who would agree with you." and when I posted Hitchens quote to prove otherwise, that even hotshit liberals like him can even see thtat Bushbashing is moronic, you slough it off. Now you disagree with your own spokesman. Ha! Must apologize if and when I get comments from the two of you confused; there's only one of me and from out here, all monkeys look alike; so enjoy the peanuts. Visiting NDE list archives yesterday I found Aaron saying "I only know two things....and one of them is that there is definitely intelligence/order in the universe." Do you still stand by THAT as well, Mr. James?

Anonymous said...

re:Iraq If all you say is true, which it isn't, then all you have proven is that having a scapegoat is better than providing a solution, which you haven't. To simply withdraw is not a realistic option. yet the bigger picture screams a question: Why are we really there. No, REALLY there?
According to the faded intel I have read, there are close to a dozen reasons, and I haven't seen you two come close to even one of them, but beyond that, what you don;t seem to understand is that we are dealing with an enemy who is more resourceful, smart, and well financed than the braindead general public is aware. Screw Iraq; they are HERE, they are READY, and all hell may break loose whenever and wherever they decide, and when it does, we will WISH it was about Iraq, and if it happens in an Obamanation, we are doubly screwed. Your kneejerk judgement of anything to the right of your shallow hate has blinded you to what's really going on, while there are some of us who are struggling to answer questions you haven't even asked yet}:-

Aaron said...

I'll give you the first steps to a solution- people like you quit making excuses for a failed war. Quit excusing the president's lies, quit attacking those who tell the truth about Iraq, quit saying that "lying is just normal politics", quit saying "there are hidden reasons for the war which mere mortals don't understand" because there aren't. Insiders have already come out and given us all the thinking that went into the war straight from the horses mouth and it isn't anything puzzling or surprising.

Whenever someone like me points out basic undeniable facts about the war, people like you get angry that someone would have the gall to acknowledge the truth. That should give you a clue.

But it won't.

Anonymous said...

apparently you haven't seen the Rockefeller report which was released today. So much for your "Bush lied" crap!

Anonymous said...

Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt:
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word…
(Dive) into Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment.
Then there’s the other Rockefeller indictment:
“There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.” - Sen. Jay Rockefeller, October 2002.
Having apparently lost the war on losing the war, and unwilling to acknowledge the success of US military arms and Iraqi progress, some are now returning to questioning the justification used to overthrow the tyrant to begin with.

It absolutely amazes me that the left will try to prove that President Bush lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq by… you know… actually lying.
1. They know President Bush didn’t lie. The Democrats believed Saddam had WMD’s and posed a threat themselves, but yet they insist that President Bush lied when he made the very same case that they were making. Furthermore, WMD’s were but one reaspn for going to war in Iraq… and not even the most compelling one. But, it’s the one that the media and the left latched onto.
The American Thinker has an interesting explanation for this. Let’s put it this way; the Democrats had to destroy President Bush and the war effort in order to regain the seat of power. They did it at the expense of the Nation’s security.

zombie wingnut said...

Aaron puts his words in my mouth: "there are hidden reasons for the war which mere mortals don't understand."

It's not about you being a mere "mortal," A-boy, it's simply about reading BOOKS, not just Moyers-Franken-Chomsky-anything red with a hammer&sickle books, but books devoid of radical socio-political agendas. Oops, I forgot. I don't know HOW to read; all my books are just dust magnets and my brainwashing information comes only from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, & Ann Coulter.

Aaron said...

Here you are majoring on all the minors. Bush lied outright to the American people and sold the war on things he knew weren't true. It amazes ME, that you still hold out that he didn't.

1.) Iraq posed no immediate threat to the U.S. and had a crippled military. Whether or not they had chemical weapons is almost irrelevent. The fact that Bush made it sound certain that they did despite ignoring some of his own intelligence information shows his careful selection of the facts. He had decided to invade regardless whether the weapons inspectors found anything. The alleged chemical weapons were probably close to irrelevent to the plan to invade Iraq. They were most important as a device to sell
fear to the American people.

2.) Iraq had no nuclear program and had not retrieved uranium or equipment to start one(Bush knew this at the same time he said they did, the Valerie Plame scandal was their way of hiding the fact that they were lying about this by discrediting Joe Wilson)

3.) Saddam had no ties to AQ (one of the key selling points of the war). They tried for a year to connect AQ with saddam and couldn't. Bush knew this but lied about it to sell an unnecessary war to the American people that was not central to 9/11.


It's impossible for me to imagine that you think Bush did NOT lie. You know he did!

But the key thing is, woud we all have supported such an invasion if he would have been honest with us?

No. Of course not.

zombie wingnuttier said...

it's not about "me," it's about the Rockefeller report, but then you know more than they do, right?
You are so wrapped up in your hatred that you can't understand this story is still unfolding. It's called "history" and it can change in a day. I have maintained from the beginning that Bush will be exonerated sooner or later, but then, that would make all the Bush haters WRONG! OMG! Why can't the neocommies think of anything original other than blaming a wartime president for everything wrong with the world? We did that in the 60's & 70's and it was boring even then. You don't even understand how juvenile this all is, but at least Chris Hitchens does, and now the cracks are starting to show BIGtime in the Rockefeller report. Read'em and weep!

Aaron said...

This story is dead Mike, regardless what the outcome is. The president lied in order to gain consent for an unnecessary war that led to mass casualties and economic loss (not to mention everything else). He upended the very meaning of things like "America Freedom" and "government for the people by the people". He made a mockery of what it means to be an American.

Apparently you think it is okay that Bush lied to get us into this. No problem. He had to get us there somehow right? And if he didn't lie then he would never have got us there, so that makes it okay.

Apparently this is what you believe. And in the next breath you are going to call *me* or anyone who is not a Konservative, a fascist.

What is juvenile is your entire last message. Here you are admitting that even though every imaginable thing has gone wrong in Iraq that anyone could have possibly guessed could have gone wrong... we should still continue making excuses to defend those who lied to get our foot stuck in the mud because maybe by some off chance in the future it will all pay off.

This is some *really* sick shit. I've lost patience with you.

upinVermont said...

This was probably one of your best posts, Mike. You tried.

The Washington Post's editorial board is notoriously sympathetic toward Republicans. Fred Hiatt is little more than a Bill Oreilly with a pencil. He reliably cherry picks the facts for partisan ends.

Here is what Hiatt conveniently failed to mention to readers like yourself (because if he mentioned them, then readers like yourself would stop reading him. The art of shilling for the right is in telling readers like yourself what they want to hear, rather than the truth.)

--Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

--Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

--Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

--Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

--The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

--The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.


However, having found this cherry-picking editorial from Hiatt, you're going to pontificate:

//Having apparently lost the war on losing the war//

You call sinking a trillion dollars into a country which still does not have a functioning government a victory? - an occupation that has lasted longer than WWII with still *NO* definition of success a victory? which, after how many years, still doesn't have a functioning economy or infrastructure a victory? Are you so completely brainwashed that you call this a victory? - when the only thing preventing civil war and an fundamentalist governance is our presence?

//and unwilling to acknowledge the success of US military arms//

What success? Where? When? All the American military has done is in preventing its troops from being killed on a daily basis. This is what you call success? The *only* thing holding that country together is our presence. This is *not* success, Mike, this is an occupation with no end in sight because people like you have *SO* lowered your definition of success that if a toilet flushes in IRAQ (and there aren't many that do that) you think the death of millions of Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers was worth it. Why don't you get your ass over there so it can catch up with your mouth.

//and Iraqi progress//

Where? Who? As we speak, the different factions in Iraq are arming themselves and digging motes. LITERALLY. The Kurds are already digging in, preparing for the end of the occupation by digging a trench along their border. I can't fathom how you don't know this, except that you allow yourself to be spoon fed right wing propaganda and spin.

//It absolutely amazes me that the left//

Sure, Mike, keep telling yourself it's the LEFT. It's not. It's people on the LEFT, the RIGHT, and CENTER. None of the ex-cabinet members who have written books & pegged Bush as either a liar or merely incompetent, were or are from the LEFT. McClellan is not from the LEFT. Give it up, Mike. In fact, Mike, I promise that I'm more of a conservative than you are.

//will try to prove that President Bush lied//

It's already been proven.

//They know President Bush didn’t lie. The Democrats believed Saddam had WMD’s and posed a threat themselves//

Who the frick cares what the Democrats did or thought? Bush lied. Those Democrats that bought into his spin out of political expediency and cowardice are no less to blame for the morass of IRAQ. There were voices in the intelligence community, at the time, her were contradicting the very claims that BUSH and complicit figures within the intelligence community were claiming. Just look at what Cheney and Rove did to Valeria Plame. You seem to harbor the delusion that by throwing the Democrats into the mix, that I'm somehow going to flinch. You think I hold the Democrats blameless? Think again. But you don't get it.

//but yet they insist that President Bush lied when he made the very same case that they were making.//

In the Senate, there were 100 votes. There were 23 votes against going to War. Only 1 was Republican. 1 was independent - my man from Vermont, and 21 were Democrats. That means that out of all the votes cast, only 1% of the opposition to the Occupation of IRAQ came from Republicans. 1% Mike. Get it? 21% of the opposition was Democratic. The vote for the invasion of IRAQ was a party line vote. The Democrats were not blameless, but the blame is far from equal. Get it?

Now lets look at the house. In the house, there were 429 votes. 126 of the votes against the resolution were Democratic. 6 were Republicans. That means that 1% of the vote against the Occupation came from Republicans. 1% Mike. 29% of the vote was Democratic. Once again, the blame for the war is *not* shared equally. Do the math, Mike. Another party line vote. And that's the problem, Mike, so called "conservatives" did *nothing* to protect Congress' role in declaring war. That gives these faux conservatives even greater blame for this debacle. *They* should have been the ones questioning the prudence of war, not Senator Byrd. Nowhere in the Constitution is the President given the sole right to declare or take our country to war.

"Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.

[Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was one of 21 Senate Democrats voting against the resolution.
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was one of 21 Senate Democrats voting against the resolution.

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."]

Alas, only one "conservative" remembered the Constitution.


//Furthermore, WMD’s were but one reason//

I know, the reasons kept changing didn't they...

//and not even the most compelling one.//

And what was the most compelling reason, Mike? Whatever it was, it hasn't worked out.

//the Democrats had to destroy President Bush and the war effort in order to regain the seat of power.//

Right, and that explains why the occupation itself is a dismal failure? No. Once again, you operate under the delusion that the only criticism of the war is coming from the LEFT. You are wrong. What part of that last sentence do you not understand? You are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Some of the most 'to the point' criticism of Bush and the Republicans is conservative - true conservative.

"Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost--And How It Can Find Its Way Back (Hardcover)"

It's by Mickey Edwards - a conservative. I've read it and let me tell you, he has little patience for Bush, the ilk who have enabled him, and gullible pretenders like yourself.

Bush occupied IRAQ at the expense of the Nation’s security.