As Scottie Sowed, So Is He Reaping

Given the utter corrupt and Macheavellian nature of the Bush Republicans; why not view the current McClellen affair in its more radical (and logical)interpretation. It's just another Rove set up.
1: nothing is presented that could go to a grand jury
2: Even though he was the one telling the lies the cautionary message is for the press to be more aggressive.

therefore

3: Since Obama will probably have the bitter harvest of the Bush legacy why not "loose the dogs of war" to ensure a 4 year presidency.

I can hear the talking heads on Fox now, "oh, we won't make that mistake again."

This toady (McC) is part of the Texas Mafia and has NEVER been known to be off message. Why would that change? It's time to wake up and see that these fascists have organizational ability and long term goals.

The US is not the world's police force? Read your US history, you'll find the principle in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution. It is the responsibility of liberty to foster liberty all over the world. Washington, Jefferson, etc. didn't advocate America's specific role in that, but only because we were a small, isolated, newly-formed nation. Over two centuries, we have become one of the world's superpowers. If it's not our responsibility to further liberty around the globe, whose is it? Lichtenstein? Botswana?

I'm not in the Bush fan club... I'm a moderate independent (pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, to name a few). But let’s review some of the things said BEFORE the war in Iraq, since some people seem to forget what was said when and by whom, preferring to believe that rat-bastard Bush lied every chance he got.

First, the president said, "We are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop [WMD]…" Later, he said “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's [WMD] program." No, that wasn’t W. That was President Bill Clinton, on 2/4/98 and 2/17/98, respectively. A letter to President Bush from 12/05/01 stated, “Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs... In addition, Saddam continues to… develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." This letter was signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), among others. Even Carl Levin acknowledged, "…the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region." (Sept. 19, 2002)

There’s so much more… snopes.com has these quotes, with full attribution showing that they are not taken out of context, here:
So there was plenty of reason to believe the war was inevitable, even necessary. How many times can we play chicken with a tyrant before we lose all credibility in the region? “We mean it, Saddam! Oh, okay… never mind. No, this time we’re really serious! What? Alright then, whatever you say…” Even if Saddam doesn’t cease to take us seriously, other countries will, and if the US loses its military credibility, we’re sunk. If we say we will defend America’s interests and her allies and then don’t, every nation that has played at testing the US before will do so with earnest. You think a two-front war is bad? What if we added Syria, Iran, and North Korea to the mix? Those countries are being kept in check precisely because they see that Bush says what he means and means what he says (poor diction notwithstanding).

And last, for those who persist in thinking that Clinton was the paragon of presidential virtue, remember a little thing called Kosovo? Clinton’s justification for military action was “the ‘moral imperative’ the United States has to prevent gross human rights abuses.” Don't believe me? Look up the article in The Progressive, May 1999. Hmmm… what was it that someone on this board said about it not being our responsibility…?

So you think the Iraq War was a Bush-Cheney-Halliburton conspiracy that defied the will of the UN? How about the fact that "The [Kosovo] air war was launched with no UN authority and in contravention of the UN Charter." See it in The Nation, June 28, 1999.

Well, so maybe we should have taken Saddam out, but then come home and left the hard work to someone else? Clinton tried that policy in Kosovo, too: "Even though no one will say it publicly, the U.S.-led war in Kosovo has been very much resented by the European governments, and to have Clinton saying 'we bombed and now you rebuild' is unpopular indeed," says Martin Butcher of the British American Security Information Council." Source: The Village Voice, June 30 - July 6 1999 issue. And it also goes against American history. What did we do to after we bombed Hiroshima? Did we leave the Japanese hanging out to dry? No, we helped rebuild Japan, as well as many European nations, because it was our moral obligation.

There are no easy answers. We want immediate results and don’t have patience to see something through. Pretty soon we convince ourselves not only that it’s not worth what we’re going through now, but that it was never worth it, and from there it’s a short leap to believe that the politicians lied just like they always do just to further their own agenda. If you disagree with policy, that's fine and fair--as I've said, I definitely have different opinions than the president on many issues. But that doesn't make Bush a villian, nor does it mean you're a bad person if you have yet another view. We just DISAGREE.

If you don't know the man personally then don't refer to him as "Scottie" unless you're hoping he'll beem you up or somthing.

DB writes, "This is a classic example of selling out personal ethics for a big pay day. To me Scott must have been convinced that money is more important than personal credibility."

================================

Do you folks even believe half the NONSENSE you actually write? (lol) I mean REALLY. So in order for this guy to HAVE "personal credibility" he has to CONTINUE to lie. (lol) How utterly PATHETIC is that?

I notice NO ONE is saying the allegations are FALSE. It's all about WHY he didn't come forward. It's about his "personal credibility".

Maybe Scott will provide book with Pop-Ups for the "red" states.

Angellight, you wrote: "...to invade a country which has not invaded us, something never done before in American history... " A few come to mind:

Tripoli (Libya) -- First Barbary War (1801-1805)
Germany
Italy
Normandy
Korea
Vietnam

What nonsense. McClellen was a spokesman: he gave the views he was told to give. So the point here is actually that the White House is still responding the same way, but attacking the person rather than refuting the content.

"To me Scott must have been convinced that money is more important than personal credibility" Hell, he's only following in the bush/repub system of ethics. Keep up the great work, Scottie!

A whole bunch of crap to make a whole pile of money. If he truly knew all this stuff, why did he not simply take it to Congress? Simple, he needed time to make up an exciting story line, it was not election time, and there would have been nothing in it for little Scotty.

Uhm, yeah Bob Z. We invaded Mexico. That was the whole Alamo thing. We were fighting over land around Texas. We won and pushed the US border to the River. I believe in the war of 1812, we kinda crossed (invaded) some borders too. Just like Hillary, you spew incorrect facts to try to prove your point.

What a brave man Scott is when its time to sell books. Boy does Washington/New York bubble suck.

Mr. Reality, I agree with much of what you wrote. But I, personally, am opposed to any special tax on any product (i.e. cigarettes, alcohol and oil) and mandating what companies do with their profits. The federal government should stay out of the private sector except where federal laws are being violated. When the federal government interferes with the free market it usually means higher prices.

gb8898, the school vouchers program doesn't come from new money. This is money that the federal government is already giving to the public schools on a per student basis. All the vouchers do is give the parents a choice of whether they want to keep their child(ren) in a failing school or transfer the same amount of money that is already going to the failed school for their child(ren) and allow their child(ren) to attend a private school. If the tuition of the private school exceeds what the voucher provides, the parents must make up the difference. Now if you want to talk about completely ending federal goverment money going to schools (and eliminating the Department of Education), then I would go certainly along with that. But until THAT is the discussion, a true conservative should believe in applying the free market principles to our education system through school vouchers.

I totally agree with you regarding federal government handouts/subsidies. I would, personally, like to see all handouts/subsidies ended, including Welfare (that should be up to the states to provide; although I would prefer it being left to the private sector -- i.e., charities, churches, etc.). Furthermore, if it were up to me, I would eliminate all tax breaks for individuals and corporations by eliminating the income tax and implementing the fair tax.

I don't agree with your assessment on the "competition" argument that the Democrats "could make" when it comes to welfare. Welfare was never designed to "level the playing field." It was designed to control the poor and to enslaven them to the master-federal government all in the guise of helping the poor.

This is a classic example of selling out personal ethics for a big pay day. To me Scott must have been convinced that money is more important than personal credibility

So he's lying and selling out the people who gave him a chance, to sell a book.
Nothing new here.

Scottie just knew that he would dramatically increase his net worth by trashing his former boss. Do you think anyone would have paid to hear him say nice things about Bush? Or that he would be on all the talk shows and get big speaking fees on the lecture circuit? Like most people who trash their former bosses in a book, this is all about money.

James, well said. While the US is blessed with a trillion plus of recoverable oil reserves (oil shale/sand, proven reserves untouchable in the Gulf, Alaska, Pacific and Atlantic) we are forced by a strong minority of enviormentalist, leftist, arrogant media types and hands out politicans to send our treasure overseas.
Intelligent leaders would realize that even if it cost $100 plus a barrel to get our oil out of the ground at least we would be keeping our money here. The dollar would have some strength and here's a thought if the average cost (I'll bet on it) for our oil is below $100p/barrel, I would be in favor of a $5 per barrel special tax DEDICATED to a fund for R&D to develop true and logical alternative energy sources. Also, instead of putting a windfall tax on oil companies (and remember 70% of the oil they use around the world is controlled by governments) how about we tell these giants that they need to reinvest x% of their porfits in the industry such as building new refineries (a strong President could sign an executive emergency order to override most of the roadblocks they currently face and use the National welfare as the reasoning). This is a win win idea but will we see it, unlikely, as not one of the Presidential candidates is making this a primary issue for the upcoming election. A true Statesman/Leader would realize that getting this message to the PEOPLE is a sure way to win in November, this would for sure override the power of the left press.

While the republicans controlled both the White House and congress for 6 years the awful San Fransisco liberals ran wild setting our policies by stealth. They lied about the reasons for war, the need of our spreading our brand of democracy and policy through the mid-east, and encouraging profits at the price of our strategic future.
Those evil and bad liberals have ruined this country, too bad this guy told his version of the truth. It may be bad for future profits.

I love hearing complaints about the responses from Drudge readers, like it's some wacko fringe group. It's only one of the most read news links on the web. It also happens to have a lot of clear thinking Conservatives among it's readership. So many Liberals can't handle clear, cool, logical thinking. 'Bush lied, people died' is their idea of a brilliant argument.

James: By the same token, conservatives (REAL ones, at least) shouldn't support school vouchers any more than they should support welfare. We also shouldn't support subsidies for oil companies or the production of ethanol, subsidies which automatically give a leg up to those industries over others. Such government intervention should be derided by people who claim to support a "free market."

Conservatives need to stop trying to have it both ways. Handing out tax dollars to corporations--be they oil companies or private schools--is every bit as insidious as handing out tax dollars to ordinary citizens. Incidentally, determined Democrats could make the same "competition" argument you make regarding vouchers when it comes to their belief that welfare supposedly "levels the playing field." Right?

And either way, it's a transfer of wealth. Sadly, many of my fellow Republicans apparently have no problem with that idea--as long as the transfer is going to the folks they choose.

I don't think it would be a good idea for Scottie to come to my town for a book signing.