That's why I come here, Tico, to get the latest info from you.
Don't think I don't appreciate these jewels.
It's mutual, gus ... believe me.
I "borrowed" this piece from PDiddie's blog. edgarblythe
I watched the Olbermann hour-long interview and read the "puzzled" reactions from his former bosses and co-workers, but I ain't buyin' Scott McLellan's conversion (nor his book, for that matter).
His public quasi-confession is as much about trying to avoid prosecution as it is about selling books. Recall, from the historical record, what McClellan said when the first Boosh whistleblower, Richard Clarke, outed the adminstration's prevaricators:
McClellan pointed to the timing of Clarke's book.
"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?" Instead, McClellan said, Clarke "conveniently" released a book in the middle of the campaign season.
This must have been long before his pangs of conscience got the best -- or worst -- of him.
And when Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said basically the same thing in January of 2004 that Scotty is saying now, except a with a tad more bluntness ...
Former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has provided the grist for an unflattering tell-all book about the Bush White House called "The Price of Loyalty". ... Mr O'Neill said President Bush was disengaged, "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," and said the administration was hatching plans to invade Iraq from the day Mr Bush entered office.
... McClellan responded with equal force:
"We appreciate his service, but we are not in the business of doing book reviews," he told reporters. "It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinion than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people. The president will continue to be forward-looking, focusing on building upon the results we are achieving to strengthen the economy and making the world a safer and better place."
Come to think of it, maybe O'Neill was ahead of Clarke. Anyway, somewhere along the road to Damascus Scotty learned the truth and decided to come clean err, write a book.
Good on him, I suppose. Note that Scotty is directly descended from an opportunistic stripe-changing zebra and a grand conspiracy collaborator/author.
So this appears to be nothing more than the next edition of "All in the McClellan Family" to me.
I'll pass on both the applause and the account of his coming to Jesus.
PROOF - WAR ON IRAQ IS FOR OIL
Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1]
The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.
The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!
"Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn),
beating analyst expectations."[2]
War-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq.
Before you choose what to believe, have you considered the facts[3] for yourself?
SOURCES:
[1] Sunday Herald newspaper (UK), "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis", 6 October 2002.
[2] BBC News (UK), "Oil prices lift ExxonMobil", 30 January 2003.
[3] Council on Foreign Relations, "Strategic Energy Policy Challanges for the 21st Century", April 2001.
US VICE-PRESIDENT CHENEY
Reading the source of your "proof," I also discovered:
(Interesting, but I thought there weren't any WMD?)
... and a provocative question:
What do you think, Advocate? Is America more dangerous?
Ticomaya wrote:Reading the source of your "proof," I also discovered:
(Interesting, but I thought there weren't any WMD?)
... and a provocative question:
What do you think, Advocate? Is America more dangerous?
What do you think? BTW, how many countries has the USA attacked since the end of WWII?
Saddam got rid of a lot of weapons in the late '90s, and never had a delivery system capable of hitting us. Moreover, he was smart enough to know that hitting us would be suicide.
Well Tico-- I don't see much danger from either personally. If the US is less dangerous that those two it must be like a little pussy cat.
Advocate wrote:Ticomaya wrote:What do you think, Advocate? Is America more dangerous?
What do you think? ....
Christ, I'd forgotten you don't give straight answers.
hawkeye10 wrote:
McClellan is voicing this view only after it became the conventional wisdom. Only now that it is becoming clear how this administration will be judged by history is McClellan trying to get on the right side. I am not very impressed, though I suppose it is better late than never to get a clue and come clean. Over all McClellan is a peon, he is not in a position to bear witness to the behind the scenes chicanery that almost all of us are sure took place. There are about eight guys, and maybe one woman (Rice) who can do this, we need one of them break.
Over the last 8 years, there has been very little in the way of conventional wisdom in the USA. You only have to look here at A2K for a microcosmic view. The stupidity of tico-like drones repeating the same old nonsense.
Rational people knew it was all a big lie. But even now, where is the outrage, what's happened to all these conservatives, their signature line about personal responsibility. Pure bullshit, that what it is, what is has always been.
What do you think, Advocate? Is America more dangerous?
Of course it is.
Advocate wrote:
The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.
His truth is marching on...
Ticomaya wrote:Advocate wrote:Ticomaya wrote:What do you think, Advocate? Is America more dangerous?
What do you think? ....
Christ, I'd forgotten you don't give straight answers.
The little christian hypocrite, taking the lord's name in vain.
This stands as one of the most disingenuous things you've ever said Tico and you are Mr Disingenuous.
Tico, suggesting that others don't give straight answers; what a phucking hoot!
How can you even show your ugly puss around here? You've been so dead wrong on so so so much, for so damn long. All this scummy stuff going on and you're rolling around in it like it's a sandbox. How on earth are you ever going to get this stink off you, Tico?
Is there anyone around here besides me interested in talking about the thread subject?? I swear, we need a playground for the children so that the adults can converse.
hawkeye10 wrote:Is there anyone around here besides me interested in talking about the thread subject?? I swear, we need a playground for the children so that the adults can converse.
Tico can certainly get people riled, can't he?
He is an advocate with links to Old Nick.
As far as Mr McLellan is concerned, rats and sinking ships come first to mind. His was a very late damascene conversion. Probably as quite rightly stated before, he seems more concerned about escaping personal censure now that most of the truth is accepted by most people. The game's up, in other words.
Now to count the cost.
BBB
McClelland could have saved himself from a lot of heart burn and gas pains if he had read Robert Draper's book, Dead Certain and learned what makes George W. Bush tick.
From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com
Reviewed by Richard Wolffe
There are two questions any definitive account of George W. Bush's presidency must answer. One has dogged him from the very start of his presidential campaign in 1999: Is he as stupid as he seems? The other has dogged him for the last five years: Why did he decide to invade Iraq?
The first question about Bush's intelligence is relatively easy to dodge but exceptionally hard to answer. No, he's not stupid, but he is simplistic and sometimes sloppy. He has a sharp strategic mind when it comes to politics, and he can delve into policy details when he wants to. However, everyone who knows the president realizes that is only a partial answer. The deeper question boils down to this: How does he apply his intelligence? Why does he disdain the policy experts and the nuance in favor of his gut judgment?
The answer to this question might ultimately help Bush historians with the other challenge -- how to understand the abrupt shift from the war against al-Qaeda to the singular focus on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. At this late stage of his presidency, there really isn't much point in writing a book about Bush without grappling with these huge, unanswered questions. This is a daunting prospect for any biographer, and Bush himself is not exactly helpful here. He hates this kind of psychobabble, and his most loyal aides and friends do, too. At his getting-to-know-you lunch with author Robert Draper, the president declined to gaze into his own navel. "You're the observer," he said, "I'm not. I really do not feel comfortable in the role of analyzing myself." This is the kind of sly putdown that Bush performs effortlessly. After six sit-down interviews with Draper, Bush seems to have revealed little about the inner workings of his mind.
Draper emerges with a treasure trove of detail and anecdotes, but he often doesn't delve -- or isn't allowed to delve -- into the deeper questions. Early in his book Dead Certain, he tells the story of Bush's failed bid for Congress in 1978. Against all the best advice, Bush decided to run against a conservative West Texas Democrat, Kent Hance. He lost badly, but not embarrassingly. Explaining his decision to Draper, he said, "You can't learn lessons by reading. Or at least I couldn't. I learned by doing. I knew it was an uphill struggle. But see, I've never had a fear of losing. I didn't like to lose. But having parents who give you unconditional love, I think it means I had the peace of mind to know that even with failure, there was love."
Let 1,000 PhDs bloom. Here is a president who boasts of reading around 100 books a year, promotes reading standards and No Child Left Behind, graduated from Yale and Harvard, and is married to a librarian. Yet he thinks he can't learn lessons by reading. You can almost hear the critics scoff. Given his current situation, if the president had spent more time studying Iraq and less time doing Iraq, he might have emerged with a different conclusion about military action.
And what about that lack of fear, that nonchalance about failure? This might just explain the deep trust in his own snap judgments. But why the immediate connection to his parents' love? Are his relationships with his parents and siblings really so simple?
Sadly, you won't find the answers to those questions in Dead Certain. But there are plenty of eye-popping moments that Draper has uncovered, to his huge credit. It's not coincidental that the anecdote above comes from a race in Texas and is sourced to a pre-presidency interview in 1998. Draper is far more enlightening about these Texas moments than the Washington years.
For instance, he vividly trashes Bush's much-vaunted business experience as general manager of the Texas Rangers baseball team. He describes his groupie behavior with the team, painting a memorable picture of what he mockingly calls the First Fan and the Jocksniffer-in-Chief. But Draper spends just one paragraph on Bush's decision to give up alcohol, and even less space on his rigorous exercise regime. These are two pillars of the president's life and character.
He uncovers great anecdotes about Bush's love of punctuality (the president locked Colin Powell out of a Cabinet meeting for being late). He tells a wonderful story about Bush's new wardrobe, and his sartorial transformation from slob to governor (including his former love of beltless polyester slacks). Yet Draper doesn't try to reconcile the self-discipline with the slobbishness, even as he watches Bush stuff a hotdog into his mouth.
Dead Certain features a compelling account of the 2000 South Carolina primary and the destruction of the McCain campaign. Yet it reveals far less about the cold-blooded calculation inside the White House to exploit 9/11 and Iraq for campaign purposes in 2002 and 2004. Bush's disputed victory in 2000 and the impact on his presidency: half a page. The challenge of electricity generation in occupied Iraq: an entire chapter.
As for the most opaque relationship inside the White House -- the mystery of the Bush-Cheney axis -- the book is mostly silent. We learn that Karl Rove opposed Cheney as the VP pick because choosing one of Bush 41's Cabinet members would appear "needy" and off-message about the candidate's independence from his father. Then nothing more -- not the fateful discussions about Iraq nor the emotional talk about Cheney's hunting accident.
Here we have the story of a needy candidate who turns into a swaggering war president. Can one person be both needy and confident? Yes, if you're President George W. Bush. If only we knew why.
I think that the big question now is whether McClellan's book will be included in the Bush presidential library.
Bush should have fired Rove, McClellan says
Posted June 1, 2008 10:52 AM
by Mike Dorning
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said this morning that President George Bush should have fired political strategist Karl Rove once he learned Rove was involved in leaking the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame.
In the immediate controversy that flared up after the Plame's identity was leaked in an effort to discredit her husband, a critic of the Iraq War, Bush said he would fire anyone involved in the leak.
But Rove was allowed to stay on at the White House even after he acknowledged discussing her identity with two reporters, including the conservative columnnist Robert Novak who published her identity. Rove did not leave the White House until last year, when he resigned on his own.
"I think the president should have stood by his word and that would mean Karl would have left," McClellan said this morning on NBC's "Meet the Press."
McClellan added that "the bar was moved" once it became public that Rove was involved in the leak.
Bush then said he would remove any White House aide who was criminally indicted and later convicted for his role, as was Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby, who was removed after his indictment. Rove was not indicted for a crime in connection with his role in the affair.
link
BlueFlame
BlueFlame, problem is that Bush OKed the Plame leak. He would have to resign the presidency after firing Rove. The idea of vice president Dick Cheney becoming president is the country's worst nightmare.
BBB
