|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 28, 2008 20:16:54 GMT -5
Might as well make money off it. Doesn't mean he's lying.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 28, 2008 21:53:22 GMT -5
yeah, because a little money is way more important than the "shocking" revelations, right?
these issues were sooooo important that he thought it was best to wait until the book was ready. pulheeeeeze!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 28, 2008 23:21:26 GMT -5
Scott McClellan deserves his own thread on this subject.....is all I can say.
No one wanted this kind of exposure.....not only does it make the whole country look incapacitated, but now the truth is hitting us in the face and no one knows how to act. Busted or should I say [glow=red,2,300]Bushed[/glow] !
|
|
|
|
Post by iraqvet2003 on May 29, 2008 7:58:02 GMT -5
'And McClellan issues this disclaimer about Bush: "I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."'
That came directly from the article posted by Saunterelle.
To the left: I know you are upset because you feel like you cannot trust your government, but please stop trying to find conspiracy where there is none. Instead, use your compassion (which you claim to have) and put yourselves in the shoes of the President and his advisers.
It is January of 2002. The country is still reeling from 9/11. You have boots on the ground in Afghanistan and they are taking care of business. You still feel threatened by much of the world, and refuse to allow American civillians be attacked while you stand there with your dangle in your hand.
In that state of mind, a logical choice is a pre-emptive strike on a rogue nation. A nation that has historically threatened you and your allies. A nation that has historically used chemical weapons on its enemies. A nation that has control of huge stores of a natural resource that is vitally important to you. A nation that has a border with another one of your enemies whose other border you are about to control; containing that enemy.
And so an attack was planned. A campaign was started to build public support (understanding that the Bush White House has been running in a "campaign" atmosphere as opposed to an "administration" atmosphere) so that you, legally, could attack that nation. Your country supported that campaign (full of rhetoric, as most campaigns are). You used old intel or poorly researched intel, you checked your gut and made a decision.
In all likelihood that is how it all went down (with some more complex variations).
The last thing any American needs is to start jumping at ghosts over the war in Iraq. I've said it before, we, as a nation of people, need to stand up and take responsibility. Even if you, personally, never agreed with the war. The US does not act on the international level as an individual, but as the embodiment of the will of the people.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 29, 2008 11:02:54 GMT -5
I don't think there is a liberal out there today who would not sacrifice this very nation in order to prove that Bush was a bad President. Not one. They love that he is a bad President, because their previous administration was so corrupt.
However, Bush being elected is really the fault of progressives and liberals who did not offer one single worthwhile candidate. Al Gore had no chance after the Clinton administration, plain and simple. And John Kerry? Give me a break. Talk about no back bone.
But, the hand wringing of the liberals will continue. People like saunterelle will place all the blame on Bush, not looking into their own party to see that it was they as well who voted for this war. And, out of one side of their mouth they will tell you that Bush is dumber then a fence post and out of the other side they will tell you he so brilliant that he tricked those Democrats into voting for the Operation Iraqi Freedom.
So, my question to saunterelle still stands: Which is it? Bush is so smart he duped the entire world? Or Bush is so dumb that he stumbled us into a war with Democrat votes? Please, set me straight on the issue. Who is dumber? The person who makes a bad decision, or the capable people who follow him?
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 29, 2008 12:20:49 GMT -5
Your dismissal of responsibility is amazing.
I'll answer your question directly as you have failed to do with mine:
Bush is dumb, no doubt about it. It takes a dumb man to "go with his gut," as Iraqvet put it, instead of analyzing the situation and coming up with the best solution. In this case his "gut" was wrong, surprise, surprise.
He used fear mongering and misinformation to create an environment where the American people supported going to war in Iraq. Democrats went along with it because they were given false information and swept up in the fear campaign masterminded by Karl Rove and other slimy neocons. Read Scott McClellan's new book if you want to get a better sense of it.
"I don't think there is a liberal out there today who would not sacrifice this very nation in order to prove that Bush was a bad President. Not one. They love that he is a bad President, because their previous administration was so corrupt."
I have to call you out on your outrageous spin. If you can't see the downfall of this country since Bush took office then you are blind. You are free to keep your head in the sand if you want but don't accuse liberals of not loving their country. We are more passionate about this country than you right-wingers who continue to stubbornly deny the obvious. And we don't "love" that he's a horrible President. Do you think we "love" living in a recession, dealing with high gas prices, having our neighbors killed in Iraq, or being the laughing stock of the rest of the world? We do "love" the fact that some of the disastrous results of the Presidents misguided policies are finally being realized. It helps ensure that Obama will be elected and the Democrats will control the House and Senate come November so we can begin righting the many wrongs of the past 8 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on May 29, 2008 13:16:45 GMT -5
IF Scott Mclellan is so noble, and so moral. He should have resigned in 03.
He didn't and now he is making loot. Yeah seems oh so noble and moral to me...if you're a liberal whack job.
Saunterelle, did you magically forget that ALL OF CLINTONS cabinet called Saddam Hussein an Immediate threat to America? And said stuff like
"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 weapons of mass destruction program" Bill Clinton Feb 17 1998
Oh you mean GWB had the SAME intelligence as Bill..GWB just had the balls to act, and not fear the crybabies. Bill on the other hand is/was wholly owned by those crybabies.....
Hey remember the time Sandy Berger said--
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, he has ten times since 1983" - Sandy Berger Clinton National Security Advisor Feb 18 1998
|
|
|
|
Post by iraqvet2003 on May 29, 2008 13:21:11 GMT -5
Saunterelle-
I wrote "...checked your gut..." not "go with his gut". Please don't misquote me, as I'll do my best not to misquote you in the future...
As for my statement, I was alluding to anyone's decision-making process where one gather the available information, evaluate it, check one's gut instinct ("Does this feel right or wrong") and then make the best decision you can with all those factors in play.
I don't know about you, but I feel that my moral compass is pretty good so I check my gut on most of my big decisions. You're right, though, sometimes your gut can be wrong. Doesn't necessarily make you dumb. I guess my plea for a little compassion fell on deaf ears.
Honest question: Did you read Scott McClellan's book? When did it come out?
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 29, 2008 13:47:47 GMT -5
Well, sorry if I misquoted you but "going with his gut" and "checking his gut" before going to war are pretty much the same thing, are they not?
I guess after Bush checked his gut he talked to God. Bush said "I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."
This is SCARY!! People have done all sorts of unthinkable things and used the excuse "God told me to do it." It seems he uses everything but logic when making decisions. Maybe that's why he will go down in history as the worst President of all time.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on May 29, 2008 14:02:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 29, 2008 14:54:19 GMT -5
Well, you might have a point there. Regarding the President going straight from his gut it is well documented. My favorite explanation why is here: youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 29, 2008 15:33:20 GMT -5
Your dismissal of responsibility is amazing. Do you mean the taking of responsibility for your actions? Like supporting the war and voting to send troops in? Let me answer your question with a question. What is more irresponsible, not doing your homework and relying on the opinion of a "fear campaign", or doing your homework and voting appropriately. Or, making a decision as a country and then abandoning the people you claim you are attempting to free, as the Democrats wish to do? Funny how the Democrats that failed to do their homework on the issue, and voted for going into Iraq to remove a dictator, now want to be free of that decision and not have it held against them. You are doing a good job of blaming Bush, but not the people on your side of the isle who would rather let a race of people languish in suffering at the hands of a despot, rather then doing the right thing and helping them. No true American would want to allow people to continue to suffer what the Iraqis suffered under Saddam. People like that support genocide through their ignorance. I'll answer your question directly as you have failed to do with mine: Having gone over every post of yours in this thread, I did not find a single question directed at me. Care to tell me what question it is I have failed to answer? Bush is dumb, no doubt about it. It takes a dumb man to "go with his gut," as Iraqvet put it, instead of analyzing the situation and coming up with the best solution. In this case his "gut" was wrong, surprise, surprise. Funny you should say that. Gut instinct is a good thing in my book. It keeps me out of a lot of trouble. Guess I am dumb too, for avoiding problems using my gut instinct. He used fear mongering and misinformation to create an environment where the American people supported going to war in Iraq. Democrats went along with it because they were given false information and swept up in the fear campaign masterminded by Karl Rove and other slimy neocons. Read Scott McClellan's new book if you want to get a better sense of it. Whoa, hold on a moment. You said, "Bush is dumb, no doubt about it." If that is the case, then how was he intelligent enough to build this elaborate plan to use fear mongering and misinformation to create an envrionment where the American people, and congress, supported going to war? One would think that our leaders in congress were intelligent, and capable of finding answers on their own, that is what we pay them for. And it is the very reason that the President must go to congress to get approval to go to war. And this is how they voted on Operation Iraqi Freedom, Senate 77 aye, 23 nay - House 296 aye, 133 nay (Senate 49 D, 49 R - House 208 D, 222 R). So, again, if Bush is so dumb, how did he dupe these Democrats of superior intelligence? "I don't think there is a liberal out there today who would not sacrifice this very nation in order to prove that Bush was a bad President. Not one. They love that he is a bad President, because their previous administration was so corrupt." I have to call you out on your outrageous spin. If you can't see the downfall of this country since Bush took office then you are blind. You are free to keep your head in the sand if you want but don't accuse liberals of not loving their country. We are more passionate about this country than you right-wingers who continue to stubbornly deny the obvious. And we don't "love" that he's a horrible President. Do you think we "love" living in a recession, dealing with high gas prices, having our neighbors killed in Iraq, or being the laughing stock of the rest of the world? We do "love" the fact that some of the disastrous results of the Presidents misguided policies are finally being realized. It helps ensure that Obama will be elected and the Democrats will control the House and Senate come November so we can begin righting the many wrongs of the past 8 years. Believe me, the downfall of this nation started long before Operation Iraqi Freedom. It started in 1968, with a Democrat majority in the House, Senate and Presidency, sending riders on Civil Rights bills that had nothing to do with Civil Rights. We had a brief respite from the slide in the 1980's, when Reagan was elected. But the slide started again in 1992, with the election of the most corrupt administration that ever set foot in the White House. Now we have over 12 million illegals in this country, thanks to those riders on the 1968 Civil Rights bill. Democrats in congress do whatever they can to prevent any nominations to go through, and there is a constant campaign mode in congress, which prevents people from voting their conscience rather then the party line. The Neosocialists in your party are the true destructive force in a country that is about indiviudal freedom. Their constant drumming of group rights has set us against each other, and given them the opportunities they need to reshape us into a nation that is increasingly more dependent on government rather then the true American goal of being less dependent. That is the legacy of your party and Obama. |
|
