|
|
Post by Mink on May 29, 2008 20:47:10 GMT -5
So, the soon to be released book is destined to be a best seller. Scott did an interview with Keith Obermann this evening and appeared on the Today Show this morning and doesn't look to be backing down. Why did he write it? Maybe this Republican had a conscience, but it sure explains and confirms what we already knew: www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/scott-mclellan-former-pre_n_103790.htmlLook for the re-run on MSNBC in a few minutes. All I can say is this administration better be scared!  |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on May 30, 2008 0:34:08 GMT -5
Why should they be scared?
They have hornswaggled the Dems since day one. With 8 months to go, what are Nancy & Co. gonna do? Impeach him?
As stupid & incompetent as this man has been portrayed for 8 yrs., he sure has had his way with the opposition-even when they held both houses.
What sort of boobs are running the Democrat Party?
Either the Dems are the incompetent ones, or GWB is a heckuva lot smarter than he is given credit for.
It really is one or the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 30, 2008 0:44:10 GMT -5
Their own is telling the same story many have concluded, not right away as most of the country supported bush directly after 9/11. This confirmation or verification exposes this administration for acting in an incompetent or corrupt manner.
No, impeachment may be too late. If anything, this will affect the upcoming election and taint the bush legacy worse than it already is.
As for blaming the Dem majority in Congress.....w-e-a-k. Pubbies ruled the majority of this bush's selected terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on May 30, 2008 9:09:08 GMT -5
As I said-hornswaggled.
Or as the young say, owned.
But I do love the delusional memory patterns.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 30, 2008 12:01:24 GMT -5
Great points Mink! This will have a massive effect on the upcoming election. You will see states that have traditionally been "red states" turn to blue. The American people are sick and tired of being lied to.
Unfortunately it's the American people who have been hornswaggled, not the Dems. We have been swindled, dooped, deceived, and hoodwinked by the Bush Administration and his slimy snake oil salesman Karl Rove. The Dems continue to allow this war to be funded because they care about our troops who are over there. They're not going to cut off the funding that helps keep them safe. Also, it lets Bush hang himself on this one. He keeps sinking us deeper and deeper into this quagmire. It ensures that the Dems will rule come November. I can't wait to hear McCain argue that the "surge" is making a world of difference over there. Unfortunately, it's just not true.
The funny thing about McClellan's book is that this isn't the first time this has happened. Richard Clarke left the Bush Administration and wrote a similar scathing book noting many of the same things. When Clarke's book came out the Administration responded in EXACTLY the same way, calling him a disgruntled employee with an ax to grind. They tried to attack his character even though he was one of the most upstanding members of Bush's cabinet, having also worked for Bush's father and Bill Clinton.
McClellan's book reveals many of the same things Clarke's did, not because he's disgruntled (he was one of the most loyal of all the Bushies) but because he is disgusted by this war which was based on lies and has cost hundred of thousands of people their lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on May 30, 2008 12:40:13 GMT -5
I beg to differ... this book isn't going to amount to a phart in the middle of the election hurricane. As I posited elsewhere...
** Scott McClellan was, by any credible account, no where near the actual intelligence and hence no where near the decision making.
** At the time all that decision making was going on he was the deputy to Ari Fleischer and his portfolio was all domestic stuff.
** If he had an issue stepping out and being the administration's face concerning these issues, he should never have accepted the promotion when Ari Fleischer left the administration.
** McClellan has admitted publicly that he and his editor "tweaked it", as in made it made it more controversial on purpose. He told Ari Fleischer that he had spiced it up. How does that square with what is being presumed to be a factual accounting?
And for the record... the Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress for only 4 of Bush's (so far) 7 years in office. By the time his term expires it will be 50/50. But having said that, the Democrats have largely shaped the policy pretty much his entire term by getting gullible Republicans to go along with their overspending, nominee blocking, obstructionist ways.
Comparing McClellan to Richard Clarke? Wow... there is apples and oranges. Clarke was a Clinton holdover, to start with. He was intimately involved in anti-terror activities where McClellan was nowhere near them. And Clarke had his own butt to cover, and his former bosses in the Clinton administration, for their failure to do a single positive thing about terror in the years following the first WTC attack. Clarke's book largely overlooks the failed Clinton policy of treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem, which in retrospect was an utter and abject failure, to try and make political hay by crapping on the Bush Administration. Completely different motivation. The Kay and Duelfer reports have largely borne out that there were some very real threats intertwined with what is derided as "the lies".
But how about McClellan in his own words on TV the other day as to what he thought of the President's motivations...
So apparently the motivation was okay in McClellan's mind. Just the administration was a little short on the execution. That's what it comes down to. Do you see that anywhere in the breathless reporting of the left? The original post, linking to that paragon of journalistic integrity, the HuffPo, is just that much more spin of the even greater lies told to acheive partisan political gain.
Finally... has anyone here even read McClellan's book yet? I have not yet, but I will. However, on balance (from what excerpts and commentary I've read), it seems to me that he doesn't fault the concept of having gone into Afghanistan and Iraq. He simply faults the way the administration has gone about it.
Big difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on May 30, 2008 12:58:43 GMT -5
I can't wait to hear McCain argue that the "surge" is making a world of difference over there. Unfortunately, it's just not true. Really kinda funny a BUNCH of articles came out this week saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the ALL KNOWING ON MATTERS OF THE MIDDLE EAST Saunterelle knows to be "just not true".... www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/28/ap/middleeast/main4130749.shtmlCopy and paste if you have to, I'm sure Saunterelle/Mink et al on that side of the aisle wont even read it though..per the usual. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 30, 2008 13:18:13 GMT -5
I read the article and nowhere does it mention that the decrease in violence in that small section of Iraq is due to the "surge." In fact it doesn't mention the word "surge" anywhere in the article.
Here are the reasons the article gives for the decrease in violence:
"One likely reason for the greater success is the logistical support from being close to Baghdad. Mosul, where a major Iraqi military campaign is under way against al-Qaida, is 225 miles northwest of the capital _ compared to the 30 miles between Baghdad and Iskandariyah.
Another is the division's success recruiting members of the so-called Awakening Councils, Sunni groups who turned against al-Qaida in Iraq after the terror group began imposing draconian measures to enforce religious discipline in neighborhoods they controlled throughout the Triangle of Death. There are about 36,000 Awakening Council members on the payroll.
A third is a cease-fire ordered last August by radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militia is present in the region far more than areas north of Baghdad.
Battalion commanders in the field also point to new counterinsurgency strategies, where units clear an area of fighters and stay to hold it from slipping back into insurgent hands."
Which of these reasons is due to the "surge?"
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on May 30, 2008 13:41:58 GMT -5
I imagine you may have read , but you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT "Comprehend".
excerpt from said article -
"Most recently, the farmlands south of Baghdad were flooded with U.S. soldiers, and areas once controlled by a single battalion of under 1,000 soldiers are now the responsibility of a brigade of 3,500."
So 2500+ soldiers WERE ADDED another way to say a SURGE , you DO understand that I imagine and are merely being difficult.
AGAIN THERE WERE UNDER ONE THOUSAND SOLDIERS IN THAT AREA ---NOW THERE ARE 3500...=SURGE
Do you HONESTLY believe it would have been from ANYTHING else? What from LESS feet on the ground.
.
Lemme see words like RECRUITING MEMBERS - ADDING TROOPS = SURGE
Better logistical support from Baghdad, you think that is because LESS Experienced soldiers are in the region?
Wow I am nearly done acknowledging to you, you are just too far gone
Just because the word "Surge" wasn't used in the article does not mean there are not MORE FEET ON THE GROUND there now, AS IS CLEARLY EVIDENCED IN THE ARTICLE.
And hmm oddly by default LESS VIOLENCE...
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 30, 2008 15:01:30 GMT -5
I read the article and nowhere does it mention that the decrease in violence in that small section of Iraq is due to the "surge." In fact it doesn't mention the word "surge" anywhere in the article. Here are the reasons the article gives for the decrease in violence: "One likely reason for the greater success is the logistical support from being close to Baghdad. Mosul, where a major Iraqi military campaign is under way against al-Qaida, is 225 miles northwest of the capital _ compared to the 30 miles between Baghdad and Iskandariyah. Another is the division's success recruiting members of the so-called Awakening Councils, Sunni groups who turned against al-Qaida in Iraq after the terror group began imposing draconian measures to enforce religious discipline in neighborhoods they controlled throughout the Triangle of Death. There are about 36,000 Awakening Council members on the payroll. A third is a cease-fire ordered last August by radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militia is present in the region far more than areas north of Baghdad. Battalion commanders in the field also point to new counterinsurgency strategies, where units clear an area of fighters and stay to hold it from slipping back into insurgent hands." Which of these reasons is due to the "surge?" This one: Battalion commanders in the field also point to new counterinsurgency strategies, where units clear an area of fighters and stay to hold it from slipping back into insurgent hands." And this one: A third is a cease-fire ordered last August by radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militia is present in the region far more than areas north of Baghdad. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 30, 2008 15:26:08 GMT -5
Neither of those are evidence of a surge. The first has to do with trying a new strategy (probably implemented by David Petraus who seems like a more effective general) and the second one is Muqtada al-Sadr declaring a cease fire. Neither one is directly related to numbers of troops on the ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 30, 2008 15:33:15 GMT -5
You don't call counterinsurgency strategies of a surge? That is odd, and really demeaning to our men in uniform. Since I am former army, I resent your implications, deeply.
And just why do you think Muqtada al-Sadr wanted a cease fire? The surge, he did not want to end up like Uday or Qusay. And, he wants a say in the new government. Seems like an intelligent move and response to the surge in my mind.
How about this one, I would say 20,000 soldiers is evidence: Shortly after the 3rd ID arrived, its 20,000 soldiers launched large military operations to quash al-Qaida cells and Shiite militias.
"We focused on establishing security in this area of Iskandariyah, and now that we have the security right, we had to worry about the most pressing need of the people, and that was employment," Lynch said.
They were successful too. Which is why you get quotes like this:
"I just don't see sectarian violence anymore," Lynch said. "In our area, people kept talking about Sunni versus Shiite. I don't see that now. Everywhere I go, people identify themselves as Iraqi. That is their identification, I am not Shiite, I'm not Sunni, I'm Iraqi."
But, if you walk around with blinders on, then you are blind.
|
|
