« Florida and Michigan primaries | Main | No new parkway needed »

June 02, 2008

Views on What Happened

Democrats and their allies in the media are claiming that Scott McClellan’s new book confirms that the Bush administration deliberately lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (5/29, A-1, “Insider faults run-up to war”).

I think it’s important to keep this issue in its proper perspective. For more than a decade prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was a bipartisan, multi-administration and multinational consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

“The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2004. “It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.”

Kevin Groenhagen
Lawrence

Political spin is an amazing thing. Does anyone really think that former White House secretary Scott McClellan’s memoir, What Happened, revealed something new?

The Bush administration has been spinning tales for many years now. The only thing this book does is corroborate, from an insider, what all of us “outsiders” believe to be true in the first place.

Susan F. Weiner
Overland Park

Only Bush loyalists are surprised by Scott McClellan’s charges of Bush’s mismanagement, blundering, and arrogance. While present Bush staffers and friends like Karl Rove — once known as “Bush’s Brain” — are feeling “sad” and “puzzled,” they’re not denying McClellan’s claims, such as the use of propaganda to sell this disastrous war.

Those who have never been Bush fans find Scott McClellan’s new conscience welcome but much too late.

Steve Walker
Kansas City

Scott “Judas” McClellan should go to Iran and Iraq for a book signing and express his personal guilt and give his book money to the Iran University School of Journalism and Loyalty.

He could take Obama Airlines and fly over New York City and check out the skyline and see if any buildings are missing.

While over there, he could stop and check out the Marine barracks in Lebanon. I forgot, that is gone, too, plus more than 200 Marines.

David L Davis
Leavenworth

Comments

Arminius

casady:

"You, on the other hand, refuse to admit fault when proven wrong (i.e you did not address Powell's comments in "Rush to War" and distorted every single response I provided)."

Airhead, if I did not address Powell's comments (which none of us can address because you did not share them here), exactly how was I proven wrong?

You have an odd definition of "distort." You mischaracterized Pual O'Neill's position on Bush and Iraq, and then I provided a link to the transcript of O'Neill himself talking about Bush and Iraq. That was some distortion, airhead.

"Instead, you respond with name calling and condensending remarks. Personally, I do not consider cordial debate."

What a minute, little fella. I called you an airhead (which I believe is accurate). My comment was limited to just you. You called me an SOB, which is an insult to both me and my mother.

Casady

I'm fine with being corrected Neidermier. That is how people continue to learn. You, on the other hand, refuse to admit fault when proven wrong (i.e you did not address Powell's comments in "Rush to War" and distorted every single response I provided). Instead, you respond with name calling and condensending remarks. Personally, I do not consider cordial debate.

Arminius

"There are many highly educated idiots in this world."

Yes, this thread is not about Barack Hussein Obama.

Arminius

casady:

I'm just correcting your numerous errors here. If you think that makes me an SOB, so be it. If you don't like being corrected, be more careful concerning what you post.

Casady

Hey Neidermeir (aka Arminius), you are quite the condenscending SOB, aren't you? I find Katman's comment in support of you humorous because you attack the messenger more than anyone. Is it possible for you to respond to anyone without referring to them in a derogatory manner. You even have me doing it.

I would offer up surrebuttal to each of your comments but why waste the time. Let's just say there is quite a bit of spin in your response.

solomon

katman,

i find the battle libs vs cons funny, in that they each toss the "I know I am but what are you?" thing constantly.

I do think its mostly cons who accuse people of being like Hitler.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

There are many highly educated idiots in this world.

Arminius

To the moonbats who say no former Bush staffers have rebutted McClellan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/01/AR2008060101922_pf.html

katman

Well spoken! There's not much needed to be a liberal. You have to be easily provoked, have a limited vocabulary of vitriol, attack the messenger rather than the message, constantly complain & blame, and compare your opponents to Adolph Hitler. That constitutes Liberal 101.

KATMAN

Arminius

KATMAN

"I'll repeat a thought I've used before. George W. is smarter & better educated than I am; and, I gather from your posstings, I'm smarter & better educated than you."

I would have to agree with that. However, it does not tke much to be smarter than the liberals on this forum. Of course, liberalism has always been more about emotions than reason.

Arminius

"What about Powells statements in "Rush to War" about his converations with George Tenet?"

That was Groenhagen's point, wasn't it? George Tenet was Clinton's DCI. The intelligence was consistent from Clinton to Bush, and it was Tenet's CIA that produced that intelligence.

"And don't give me your vitriolic song and dance about not having time for a rebuttal publication. These publications have been coming out for years yet a reputable rebuttal has yet to address any of it."

Hey, airhead, I already mentioned Douglas Feith's book. Having said that, you cannot expect a rebuttal to McCellan's book to be published BEFORE McCellan's book. Are you confused about the meaning of rebuttal.

"It's not as if McCellans book is the first account of this. And you may want to actually read Paul O'Neills book rather than clipping an NRO sound bite."

Hey, airhead, if you could read you would know that it was not an NRO sound bite (as if that matters). O'Neill's statement was made on the Today Show.

"If you actually read my first post, you will see that I am not an rabid Bush Basher."

No, you just play one of this forum.

"I don't think he lied but I do think the decision was made in haste unnecessarily and group think syndrome set in."

Yes, we only gave Saddam 12 years to comply with those UNSC resolutions. How hasty!

"I merely asked the question as to why have so many books and statements by ex staffers been made against this Adminstration without rebuttal and the vitriolic Whackdom like Katman and Arminius go berzerk. Talk about airheads!"

Hey, airhead, I already noted that you mischaracterized Paul O'Neill's comments about Bush and Iraq. And it has already been established that Richard Clarke lied numerous times in his book. See http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/clarke.html

And isn't "so many" quite an exaggeration? You have O'Neill's, which you mischaracterized. There Clarke's, which was a polemic and not an examination of the facts. And now we have McClellan's, a book that originally set out to criticize the left-wing media, but was transformed into a Bush-bashing book once the Soros folks made an offer little Scottie could not refuse.

As far as former staffers who support Bush, we have Ari Fleischer, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, and David Frum. You can be sure that others who served under Bush will write positive books after January 2009.

katman

Hopalong, have you ever heard literate persons use remarks like "vitriolic whackdom"? Also, is a rabid Bush basher the same as a Bush basher? Last day of school tomorrow -- I'll ask my high school students how they feel about your command of the English language. Like, whatever, dude.

KATMAN

I'll repeat a thought I've used before. George W. is smarter & better educated than I am; and, I gather from your posstings, I'm smarter & better educated than you.

Casady

"Kind of difficult to get royalties on a free book, airhead"

Fair enough. So that leave the other explaination (that you are sleeping with the author).

What about Powells statements in "Rush to War" about his converations with George Tenet?

And don't give me your vitriolic song and dance about not having time for a rebuttal publication. These publications have been coming out for years yet a reputable rebuttal has yet to address any of it. It's not as if McCellans book is the first account of this. And you may want to actually read Paul O'Neills book rather than clipping an NRO sound bite.

If you actually read my first post, you will see that I am not an rabid Bush Basher. I don't think he lied but I do think the decision was made in haste unnecessarily and group think syndrome set in. I merely asked the question as to why have so many books and statements by ex staffers been made against this Adminstration without rebuttal and the vitriolic Whackdom like Katman and Arminius go berzerk. Talk about airheads!

Oh yeah, here.

www.sinsofthehusband.com

Engineer

NYAJ
Have you ever made a difficult decision? The one thing typical of all difficult decisions is that there are pros and cons. Once a difficult decision is made then every political leader who has ever made one has marshaled the facts on which he based the decision and presented them to the public. That is not lying that is simply presenting your argument. I challenge you to give me an example showing otherwise. I also say that you cannot demonstrate that President Bush lied concerning this matter. He has made some mistakes but a mistake is not a lie.

Arminius

Casady is mischaracterizing Paul O'Neill's position on Bush. Here is what O'Neill actually said:

“You know, people are trying to make the case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration,” O’Neill told Katie Couric. “Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that we needed regime change in Iraq.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_01_11_corner-archive.asp#022684

Arminius

Anne:

"It's no wonder you cited Bob Dole's comments. Like many who post here, he just attacked McClellan with name-calling. He didn't even attempt to refute the facts, just went after the man. That's not considered intelligent discussion."

McCellan himself refuted the "facts" in his book during numerous press conferences. If you think he was lying then, why believe him now. He essentially pulled a David Brock and now has zero credibility.

Arminius

Joe:

"But Mr. Groenhagen, Bush is the one who actually invaded. Before acting, you darn well better be sure of your facts."

Well, genius, 9/11 happened after the Clinton administration. You moonbats tend to forget about that "lttle" incident. Clinton himself said he would have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq had he been in the Senate during the fall of 2002.

"Personally, I think Bush was sure of his facts, he just lied to cover what he did know so he could find a reason to do it anyway."

So you think Bush knew the Clinton administration was lying when it said Iraq had WMD, was a threat to the U.S., and was working with al Qaeda?

"Mr Davis, its also been well established that Al Queada and Iraq were not connected at that time."

That's a falsehood. Documents discovered in Iraq confirm that Iraq and al Qaeda had numerous connections. In addition, bin Laden said in 1997 that he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in response to Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq. In that sense, 9/11, one of those "messages with no words," had everything to do with 9/11.

Arminius

Casady:

"So Arminius, are you getting royalties on this book or are you sleeping with the author or what?"

Kind of difficult to get royalties on a free book, airhead.

"But the one thing I do wonder about is we have the likes of Paul O'Neill, Colin Powell, Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward and now Scott McCellan among others all saying pretty much the same thing. Are they all liars?"

Note that McClellan has never said Bush lied about Iraq. And, yes, Richard Clarke is a liar. See www.sinsofthehusband.com

"Why haven't any rebuttals been published by other former staffers? There are certainly enough publishers out there who would be willing to take the risk? It has to make you wonder."

Well, Einstein, it's kind of diffuclt to rebut McClellan's book with another book when McClellan's has been available for less than a week. In any case, there is a recently published book that takes the opposite view as McClellan's MoveOn-massaged viewpoint. Of course, the MSM will not give Douglas Feith the same amount of coverage.

Casady

Katman:

First of all, I'm not sure who you are defining as "you folks". Secondly, you failed to answer my question. There have been several ex staffers, some more prominent than others who have come forward with similar accounts on the rush to war and the hasty interpretation of intelligence. The list includes notables such as Paul O'Neill and Colin Powell among others. Do you think they are all lying to make a quick buck? It is a yes or no question. Just answer it and stop being evasive about it.

To answer yours, yes I think McCellan put the book out to make money. I also think there is a certain amount of truth to it as it corroborates with accounts detailed by other insiders.

katman

Casady, I'm not sure what point(s) you are trying to make. I refuse the temptation for "an eye for an eye" or to "fight fire with fire". And, I'm definitely not interested in matching stupidity with stupidity.

Tell me your your reason for McClellan writing the book. $$$$$$$$$$

KATMAN

I promised myself no more counter punching but you folks lead with your chin and drop your guard.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright