Political Punch

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.

Matt, conservatives do not push school vouchers because all private schools are better. They push school vouchers because they want parents to have a choice. When there is choice, there is competition. When there is competition, the bar of quality is raised. Too many public schools are failing our children. Why should the poor be forced to keep their children in these failing schools? Since the Democrats have controlled many of the school districts in which these failing schools are located, one can question the sincerety of the Democrats desire to educate our children. They would rather kowtow to the unions and place the unions' interest above our children.

$4 per gasoline is now a reality. $5 per gallon is right around the corner. Some forecasts have gasoline possibly going to $15 per gallon within the next five years. There are only two ways to lower the price of gasoline: Increase supply and decrease demand. We have not had a new refinery built in over twenty years. Over TWENTY YEARS!!! It's not for a lack of interest in building. It is because the Democrats and the environmentalists have block construction for over twenty years. As for drilling, thousands of oil dereks were shut down in the 1980s and 1990s. And in some places they were filled in with cement. This was the policy of the Liberal environmentalists. They knew there would be a call to reopen the oil dereks. By filling in the dereks with cement, this would make an immediate opening impossible.

I agree that we need to begin using alternative fuels. But that won't happen over night. In the meantime our economy is being dragged down by the CURRENT high cost of energy. And there is no end in sight. If we immediately began drilling and producing more of our own oil, the cost of oil futures will drop significantly. And the sooner that we (the United States of America) can begin producing an additional 50-100 million barrels a day the quicker we can break our dependancy on OPECs oil. You are right, if Congress gave the green light for this right now, it will take several years before it would come to fruition. BUT if Congress waits another fives years before giving the green light, then it will be that much longer. If they never give the green light, then our economy will suffer for decades. They need to act now both in increasing our supply of oil (more drilling & more production) AND in decreasing the demand for oil (quickly developing alternative fuels).

BUT the Democrats would rather keep education and energy as election-year issues rather than solving these problems. They say they are the Party of the people. Actually they are the Party of the federal government. They want the federal government to be the answer to everything. The Liberal wing of the Party despises the public sector. They despise the free market and capitalism.

The Truth will prevail. HONEST-LOGIC

NAU2010
If SM really believed all he says not he is a complete coward and traitor for not speaking out to the press then and saving all the "Blood and Treasure" that has been spent.
He too has the blood of all lives lost on his hands.

Folks, this is all about money. McClellan is striking while the iron is hot. His timing is impecable, the real start of the next Presidential campaign, Bush still in office and the Democrats in control. Why should Americans outside the beltway believe anything in this book? If we should not believe anything Bush or any politican says then why should we start with McClellan, now if he was a Stateman like Senator Everett Dirksen was or Joe Liberman is now then that would be different. Remember in everything Washinton follow the money.

I would much rather have a third McBush term than a second OCARTER term.

Obama says the war was caused by not enough and bad info given to Bush and Obama says he will talk to our enemies but not our generals or go to Iraq to see for himself what is going on "Where's the change"?

Where are the xtra states Obama talked about in MEXICO?

When someone is part of an organization, they do not want to blow the whistle on any part of it. Once the individual feels the safety of time and distance, they then begin to feel "safe" about comming out. You cannot judge the past actions and opinions of what this man said while still serving the president, that would be very ignorant judgement.

McClellan got the drop on his former bosses at the White House. His book is on the shelves now while the rest of them have to keep their traps shut til after Bush is gone or risk excommunication. He's going to rake in the money that they would have gotten. It's all about the money. The truth is that Bush doesn't take care of his friends after he's finished with them, there's no honor among thieves.

FDuquette: "In Canada, you must sign such agreements into perpetuity, and can only be trumped under oath in court."

So in Canada the public has no right to know what is going on in the bowels of government? And I thought that Canada was a democracy. Knowing what is going on in government is absolutely essential to a democracy. And there are things going on in government that only insiders know.

Here in the United States we are concerned that whistle blowers have some protection; in Canada, apparently, whistling blowing is a crime.

"I just know that historians will certainly be a lot kinder to the Bush Administration."

This is exactly the kind of lunacy one sees when a story ends up being linked on Drudge. Nothing else can quite match it for bringing them out from under their rocks.

Scott is hearing only one thing today:

KA-CHING!

$$ is why he wrote this book.

"For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

James Danley --

Conservatives, have already run this country nearly into the ground, $9 trillion dollars in debt. Liberals may control the urban school districts, but the conservatives control the money. There is a direct correlation between quality of education in school districts and average income level. Conservatives continue to push for school vouchers and choice in where parents send their kids, stating that private schools are better. In fact a new Dpt of Education report shows that public and private education are about equal. Math scores between public and private schools are the same, private out performs public in reading scores.
This notion that conservatives have that private sector always is best, simply does not hold up to fact. Public education in this country is declining in part because of republicans consistently favoring private over public. De-funding public schools or hamstringing them with metrics that are derived only from standardized tests.

To your point about gas, drilling our way out of the current problem is a very short sighted solution. Any new drilling, say in ANWR, isn't going to provide any immediate relief. It will take YEARS before ANWR would be productive. Even if it had been opened up in 2003-4, it wouldn't be able to provide relief now. Conservatives seem to life in this alternate reality where resources are unlimited. Oil is going to run out someday. The US can either prepare for that inevitability, or hide our heads in the sand. Increased fuel efficiency and development of alternative energy sources will not only reduce prices but also allow for energy independence.

Don't U.S. government employees sign confidentiality agreements? Im surprised that white-house staffers and former dog-catchers can write these tell-all books in the first place.
In Canada, you must sign such agreements into perpetuity, and can only be trumped under oath in court.

Mc has no credibility. He wasn't even the WH spokesman when the war started. He wasn't involved in any of the run up to the war and had not one iota of knowledge of what was said, much less going on. He wants his 15 minutes of fame but it will be as a liar and a turncoat.

It breaks my heart to read so much hate talk from my fellow citizens. I guess it is true what they say: "...if you hear a lie enough times you will believe it to be factual..." I can remember back to FDR and every president has been the target malicious lies which history eventually corrects. Don't get me wrong, our Presidents haven't all been completely free of mistakes.

There is a difference between an honest mistake and malfeasance. For all of you who are part of this latest round of Presidential hate, and scaremongers, have you asked yourselves if what you claim is true why hasn't this new congress started impeachment proceedings against our President and Vice President? Could it be they prefer the dark.

I hope Scott sells lots of his books and makes tons of money, isn't that what going to Washington DC is really about? Loyaltye463 8g1is over rated in the work place, there really isn't such a thing as a loyal employer so why do we expect a terminated employee to be loyal? That is just silly.

Regardless of what his intentions are, what McClellan said on the Today Show today is right. Most politicians go into Washington with high ideals but soon realize that if you don't play the game, you won't be there for long. So they start playing the game hoping they'll get something accomplished and end up disconnected from the real world and out of touch in their Washington bubble.

Excellent post James Danley. 'nuff said.

Dan Bartlett is going around stating that the reason for going to war was based on "flawed intelligence." However, there are some who believe that this Intelligence was not flawed, but MANUFACTURED, as in the forged Niger documents yet to be truly investigated! I cannot in good conscience let Dan Bartlett's statement go unchallenged!

David Gregory thinks it is ok for the Bush Whitehouse people to come out and say the exact same identical talking points, as if they are devoid of a thinking, rational mind and are unable to use their own ideas -- ideas which might get them in trouble, however. This form of speaking in this manner is Brainwashing and dictorial, and it is not ok. And, I think David Gregory knows this. This type of brainwashing and parrot-like mimicking and chorus from our elected officials is indefensible and inexcusable in a working democracy.

And many are shooting the messenger and missing the point, the content of the book the glimpse it gives into a mind or a group of minds who thought it important enough to invade a country which has not invaded us, something never done before in American history and boarders on barbaric! What matters when he wrote it or why he wrote it, when we are getting a sliver of a glimpse into the truth and inner workings towards a war which should never have been Authorized and waged!

And YES, the Media failed us then and it looks as if they are failing us now. Going all around the issues that this war was planned first and then reasons given out later to fit the scenari and that maybe the so called intellegence was most likely manufactured! If I, who am just an average Joe knew that this war was wrong and most likely manufactured way back when, when a few courageous people stood up and said NO to this war against the chorus of the Yes Men and Women, then the Main Stream Media, shoud have also known or at least asked the hard questions, something they failed to do. This lesson in history is not only a failure of the Bush administration due to lies and distortion but also of a Media who did not do their job and was led by their "journalistic" noses to enjoin into a disastrous and unjust course of action which has badly devastated and devitalized the American way of life and those too of the Iraqi people. There is no true reconstruction moving forward in Iraq or in America -- are bridges are falling for God's sakes and our Cranes, weekly or monthly around the United States there are incidents of cranes falling! Where is the media on those stories? No, they rather spend hours on superficial stories on Britney Spears, hollywood socialites, Rev. Wright, Barack's bowling score, how many beers did Hillary drink, Saturday Night Live skits, etc. There are a few champions in the Media but they are few indeed and often silenced out! Hopefully this tide will turn and journalists will find and live up to their calling again!

Scott McCllean's book is a story waiting to be finished. Slowly, steadily the truth will emerge, layer by layer until the whole pattern takes shape and form, as in the unburdening of our conscience of some long-dark held secret — the full pattern has yet to emerge, this is just a part.

Theo, you wrote: "I believe Scott and can understand why he waited until he was out of the White House to voice his opinion." Scott McClellan left the White House on Apr 26, 2006. Just over TWO years ago. According to several individuals who have continued to keep in contact with Scott, as late as last year, Scott never expressed any of the comments that are said to be in his book. To the contrary he continued to defend the Administration and the lead up to the War in Iraq.

Gene, I know that there is nothing that I can say that will change your (or many of the commenters') opinions of the Bush Administration. I just know that historians will certainly be a lot kinder to the Bush Administration.

Part of me wonders if maybe we shouldn't just let the Liberals take over the country for four years so that you and the whole world can see just how misguided the Liberals are. My rationalization is that you (and the others) will then actually witness what real "dragging this country through the mud" is...but then the consequences of even four years might be so huge that I really can't wish that upon us.

I listen to Sen. Obama's rhetoric (and that is all it is, rhetoric). He talks about the need to improve our school systems. Yet he had been in a position to actually make positive changes to the Illinois school systems. And they are worse now. In fact, the Democrats have had control over most of the largest urban school districts in the United States for decades. Democrats don't want to solve problems...they want the problems to remain so that they can use the problems as issues when running for re-election. Education has been an issue in every election for the last 60 years -- even when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress by nearly veto-proof majorities.

And then there is the issue of the high cost of gasoline. The Democrats are using the $4.00 plus per gallon of gasoline as an issue. But not only have the Democrats advocated raising the federal tax on gasoline $1-$3, but many have actually said that we Americans should be paying the same price ($6-$8) that the Europeans are paying. But on this issue it has not been just rhetoric. For decades the Democrats have actually blocked efforts to increase our supply of oil. They block new drilling. They block building new refineries. And now the Democrats want to implement a windfall tax on the oil companies. This will only lead to even higher prices.

And while we're suing, let's remember to sue the democrats who believed the CIA and foreign agencies who said Sadham had weapons of mass destruction and was ready to use them. Sue Ma Clinton and Obama. They believed too. I must admit. From what I've heard, items from Scott's book doesn't sound like the Scott I remember. Another David Brooks?

essence said:
Now he's serving black coffee to anyone who wants to sober up.
********
Great post. Great analogy!

the entire basis of this article rests on the assumption that SM was stating his personal opinion when he was the white house secretary. since that is obviously not the case, the hypocritical slant doesn't really work. just be angry that he further exposed the incompetencies of GWB and his administration and move on...

I believe Scott and can understand why he waited until he was out of the White House to voice his opinion. If anyone has ever been in the military then you understand that what your Commander In Chief (Bush) says is what you say. You are just a parrot unless you do not want to move up or make more rank. A few years ago some ex -Generals spoke out and some people were saying that they were not being truthful and were just disgruntled. NO! They could not say anything before if they wanted to leave the military with and honorable discharge, or if they wanted to keep their current post.
When Barrack Obama is President watch how Gen. Petraeus' attitude about the war changes.

It seems that McClellan is trying to get the red "kool-aid" stains off his tongue and his hands. Now he's serving black coffee to anyone who wants to sober up. I can't see any reason for him to come out at this time, other than to ensure McCain's loss in November.

Scott was always a closet liberal and has been persuaded to come out of the closet now because a critical national election is at hand. I don't believe he wrote the entire book and there is evidence his family isn't all together truthful either. Scott sounds like a spoiled brat and I wondered why in the world he was chosen press secretary in the first place. He certainly never lived up to the challenge...now we know why, yet he didn't have the courage to resign...money!

I can't believe you are all buying into this. You are just a bunch of sheep.

McClellan is not telling the American public anything that we did not already know. This administration is far worse than the Nixon administration ever dreamed of being. They have all committed treason in my book and should be thusly charged. McClellan is a no-account coward. He had an opportunity to stand for truth long ago, and could have stood up then. He chose not to do so, but rather to be a mouthpiece for lies and propaganda. Now he is crying. He should be skewered right along with the rest of these neo-con nazis who are dragging this great country through the mud.

Get real. He wants to sell books and make money. His editors sensationalized his comments to attract media attention. That is how the book business works.

Political motivation?
Just found it...Cash and Smear.

"Little Green Footballs"
The Soros/McClellan Connection

I find the article a little disengenuous. Surely the author knows that white house press secretaries speak for the administration and not for themselves. As white house secretary it is your job to discredit anyone who would criticize the administration. I'm amazed that there is such a large number of people who don't understand that. Folks, this is how we got into this mess in Iraq. The dissenters were silenced and ridiculed.

Let's go Wexler...get McClellan and Benidict's bestest buddy, Rand Beers into testify under oath about his statements.(political motivation?)
Going to have to be quick though, before this all gets debunked.
After that, He needs to be tried for treason, jailed and or executed

Jeff: about as tidy a summation as anyone could ask for. Most people who oppose the Iraq war apparently think the only U.S. wars ever worth fighting were the Revolutionary War and WWII...and both those wars had plenty of naysayers (Loyalists and America Firsters) clamoring to stay out.

American10, you wrote: "He (President George H. W. Bush) stop the surge into Iraq because he knew it was a no WIN position." Actually, Bush 41 did not go in and finish off Saddam Hussein because the neighboring countries funded the war on the condition that we NOT take out Saddam Hussein.

Now maybe this is news for some of you, but the 1991 Gulf War never ended. There was only a cease fire based on the agreement that Saddam Hussein would meet certain conditions, including proof that he no longer had WMDs. Saddam Hussein failed to comply with ANY of the conditions. And if anyone lied about WMDs it was Saddam Hussein. He wanted his neighbors to believe that he still had WMDs. He could not offer the proof to the UN Security Council that he did not have WMDs and still have his neighbors believe that he did. So he chose to continue with the lie. After 12 years of his failing to comply with the cease fire conditions, the UN Security Council issued a final ultimatum. However, since the UN Security Council made it clear that they were not going to follow through on their ultimatum, President Bush issued his own ultimatum. The invasion could have been avoided, all Saddam Hussein had to do was to prove that he no longer had WMDs. Saddam Hussein called what he thought was a bluff on the part of President Bush. Instead, President Bush kept his word.

A simple Google search on the House’s Report “The Iraqi WMD Challenge -- Myths and Reality dated February 10, 1998” will serve to add perspective to the sense of the U.S. House of Representative’s view for the need of an Iraq War Resolution.

It was not a war that should have needed "selling" to begin with although the Bolshevik wing of the Democratic Party later saw an opening to go on a truffle hunt to root out votes with another “peace movement.”

One might suspect that, based on the timing of the book, McClellan “saw his opportunity and took it” to come up with a National Enquirer quality expose that would offer him an immediate financial return on his effort. Secondarily, a person could likely wager successfully that McClellan would surface in some mid-level federal job with the proposed Ibn Obama administration if such a disaster came to fruition,

Surely McClellan will feel more at home with the opportunity Obama affords the nation for a second Jimmy Carter term. The democrats didn't learn their lesson after the first one evidently although the nation learned the hard way about hiring the bumbling and inept failure that gave us a modern Iran in all its Islamic theocratic splendor. Even the Kerry crowd had enough sense to insult Carter by sitting him next to Michael Moore in the presidential dunce box at the last democratic convention. Based on what he has been doing lately, they should seat Carter under the next convention site.

george bush told lies can any of the 60 million idiots who voted for him believe this nonsense i hope not

It's different now that he's selling HIS book. I rest my case.

McCLELLAN: "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."

McCLELLAN: "Yes, and that's just flat-out wrong. When someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it's important that we set the record straight. And that's what we're doing. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today."

He's just writing what the 68% of AMerica who disapproves of President Bush want to believe. He's a pandering opportunist.

Bush,

FEMA, and a Horse farm heading that position.

What a laugh

FMV and sydbloom and all bloggers,,

Let me get this straight, you mean that you don't believe that the Iraq was a complete failure from the start?

Daddy Bush had more sense than Jr., or had the right advisors. He stop the surge into Iraq because he knew it was a no WIN position.

But we have some fools here in America that will not believe the bump on their FACE, is a real bump.

We Americans that are suffering from the cost of the war as we have enslaved our children to a DEBT to CHINA and others want to FACE THE TRUTH.

ALL other FOOLS believe what you want.

Yes we can..

A vote for a Republican would be a vote to confirm that you will buy SWAMP LAND IN FLORIDA.

YOU CAN LEAD A MULE (JACKASS) TO WATER BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE HIM DRINK (IN THE MIDDLE OF A DESERT)..

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT... WHY

HE HAS BEEN UP FRONT WITH WHAT HE HAS TO WORK WITH....

HE WILL PUT THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THE RIGHT POSITIONS TO DO THE JOBS ASSIGNED TO THEM. (Hillary and Bill owes FAVORS and some of them will get positions that they will be CLUELESS)

YES "WE" CAN

WE MEAN THE PEOLPE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THAT LOVES THIS COUNTRY AND BELIEVE THAT IT CAN BE BECOME GREATER THAN EVER, WITH THE PEOPLE BECOMING APART OF THE GOVERMENT. NOT LEAD LIKE SHEEP

just amazing!!!
a kiss and tell book
remember when Linda Tripp spoke her mind about the Clintons??
well she was a traitor and how dare she..
Now this guy is looked on as some hero
gee,how much money did he get for this book, becauce in my opinion he sold his soul and the rest of America with it.

Jeff ... you seem to one of the few here with a working mind.

The rest are suspect. How can you folks in good conscience use the deaths of 4,000 fine young men and women who volunteered to serve their country for your crass political drivel?
How do you defend the loss of 58,000 lives by Kennedy-Johnson Democrats in a war in which WE WERE NOT ATTACKED?
And don't gimme that Iraq didn't attack us crap. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist sponsor ... stuff THAT in your narrow-minded empty space called a head.

I wonder who is behind this scandal book affair?
Anybody told him to do so?
Is this related to election?

I laugh at the statement Bush lied.
If Bush lied, so did Carter, both Clintons, Gore, Kennedy and just about every other congressman, along with the majority of foreign leaders. All these people believed the intelligence from many agencies that Saddam had WMD, first because he had used them on his own people. And imagine what Saddam would be able to buy with oil @ $125/barrel. As for Scott McClellan, lets see what evidence he has to support his allegations, if has none, which is what believe, his 15 minutes of fame will come to a screaching halt.
And his book sales will crash. He better get a good attorney.

Another guy saying it's not HIS fault..he did everything he could...no on listened to him...he was decieved...he was stunned and afraid....

sheeeesshhh !!! heard all of this before, from so many of these political people...

It seems to me that Bush's big blunder was to have a lot of people around him, that were basically untrustworthy....bad judgement...from Collin Powell to this snerdly guy...

Wouldn't want to rely on any of these people to watch my back....

a pox on them all....

..... but I trust McCain's criticism of the Bush administration even less.

McCain is the new Cheney.

He's almost as experienced.

If Bush himself came out and told the truth about all the lies he told to get us into Iraq, many of you would come out saying that he doesn't now what he's talking about. I've often wonder how so many in the Middle East and other parts of the world can be duded into carrying out such atrocities again humanity. Now I finally see how that's possible.

George Bush bad, Democrats good. LOL

It must be true it's written in a book.

Let's see how he does under oath. The stakes will go up at that point. He shot his mouth off. He can show the world what substance his allegations have or he can do time with Scooter.

When a soldier deserts a corrupt regime he inevitably finds himself the target of the same gun he once operated.

This is no different.

"Et tu Brute" No one trusts a backstabber!

"darling of the liberal left"? In that case, the over 70% of the country that's sick and tired and disgusted with warmongers is the liberal left.

"Bush read a story to a pet goat while the World Trade Center burned" He wasn't reading TO a goat, he was reading ABOUT a goat.

Maybe he used some of the same