Wednesday, May 28, 2008
|
|
McClellan's David Brock Problem
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
7:38 PM
|
It's pretty clear at this point what Scott McClellan did, and why. His book has zoomed to #1 on Amazon, and he can only hope that it makes him enough money to be worth the sacrifice of honor and friendships that it has and will cost him.
With the unfortunate exception of Donald Regan, time was that presidential staffers waited at least until their bosses -- the men who had "brought them to the dance" and offered them unparalleled opportunities to serve, and to witness history first-hand -- were out of office before dumping on them (or their wives, as in Regan's case). Such delicacy no doubt entailed some sacrifice in terms of remuneration; in order for memoirs to sell well once a president's out of office, they have to offer insights of actual value, rather than simply serving as a hatchet-job account designed to make a quick buck -- and that's a much more daunting proposition.
As Matt points out below, Scott McClellan has damaged his long-term economic prospects and his reputation by apparently adopting positions that are antithetical to those he held (or at least voiced) when he was working at The White House. But even aside from the questions about his judgment and his loyalty that this kind of about-faced memoir raises, Scott McClellan has created a David Brock-style credibility problem for himself (named in honor of the man who has penned both The Real Anita Hill and Blinded by the Right, within eight short years of each other).
The fact is that when you offer two versions of the truth, you make it clear that at least one time, you've been lying.
|
|
That's like telling the slaves in America that they shoulda got themselves free if they wanted it that badly.
You are correct, we have to protect the oil as well. |
|
|
This was NEVER about bringing democracy to Iraq. That was just a poorly considered fig leaf for invading Iraq (which I still support). It is about having most of the world's oil supplies being surrounded by unstable and hostile forces. Get a map. We could have handled this differently with better results at less cost. Democratic freedom is not a gift that can be presented to people. You have to want it so bad that you are willing to fight and die for it yourself. We don't want a nanny state for ourselves so why are we creating a super nanny shell state for a 3rd-world tribal conglomeration? They aren't even a "nation" so what exactly do we expect them to be fighting for? |
|
|
Scott will find plenty of employment even though he wrote a book criticizing his boss AFTER they left their graces. GS said the same thing, "I shoulda..." |
|
How did it escape others that, of course(!), we went into Iraq to stabilize the region and have a friendly govt there? Wow you Dem/libs get stuck on one thing and won't let go, like a crab. Small-minded people do that. It leads to grudges which are usually only harmful to one's self.
|
|
|
Art of the Possible, meaningless?? No it's not. People that still believe we can invade and occupy a Muslim country and impose Democracy on them by the point of a gun are NeoCons. They're delusional. Utopian Trotskyites. |
|
Fat Man,
The underlying problem with Iraq was that we had the possibility of inheriting a Germany (A prosperous nation capable of inspiring the entire region when rebuilt) or a Yugoslavia (an artificial creation where ethnic rivalries would flair up when a dictator was removed.) I recall a column discussing this possibility months before the war started.
Unfortunately, so far, it is turning into Yugoslavia.
Iraq was an artificial creation of British imperialists bonding together three disparate peoples from the remains of the Ottoman Empire. |
|
was never misled by this administration.
I was clearly informed from the beginning that going to Iraq would serve a two-fold purpose. First, it would rid the world of a dangerous dictator. Second, and much more importantly, it would serve as a starting point for sweeping change in the Middle East.
And I'm no Washington insider. I'm simply an average American citizen. This was the case that was made from the very beginning. Those who deny this are either ignorant or willfully revising history.
I was informed of this far-reaching, radically different policy - and I supported it. So did most Americans. I still support this policy. It is the best chance for lasting peace in this historically troubled region.
What are the alternatives?
|
|
It seems to me that McCellen claims the goal of transforming the Middle East was some big secret. It was openly discussed long before the war started, that the Iraqis, because they were better educated and more cosmopolitian than other Arab nations, were prime candidates to establish democracy once Saddam was deposed. To say Bush was hiding this 'real goal' behind threats of WMD's is just silly.
The belief that Saddam had WMD's was nearly universal. The Clinton Administration believed it. Most of the foreign intelligence agencies believed it.
Like every war we've ever fought, we went in with optmistic appraisals that weren't born out. If Bush didn't learn, it's because we never learn. We're Americans, and we (rightfully) think the world would be a better place if more people were like us. Certainly Bush's hope of a democratic Middle East was no more utopian than Woodrow Wilson's hope that WWI was "the war to end all war" and would "make the world safe for Democracy", or William McKinley's belief that we should "Christianize the Filipinos" (who were already 90% Christian when we annexed the Islands in 1899.) Of for that matter, Bill Clinton's claim that "Two World Wars started in the Balkans" as an excuse to pummel Serbia into submission. (Actually, only one did, and if it hadn't started there, it'd have started somewhere else.) |
|
You are certainly misinformed like a typical BDS sufferer. The Mission accomplished phrase used aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln was in regard the to the Ship itself. But you left-minded thinkers have selective hearin or reading. Had you read the complete speech or heard it, here are the lines the media leaves out on purpose:
"Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland — and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.
The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory."
Do you get it now? Your BDS has blinded you to the truth.
|
|
1.Dubai Port Authority is the best option,to manage the operations of our ports even though 2 of the 9/11 high jackers were trained in Dubai.
2. Miers is the best choice for supreme court judge - never mind that she neither practiced nor majored in constitutional law and there are other qualified female judges. "Miers will vote the right way, trust me I know her" Bush's strongest argument for picking his 10 year business attorney for supreme court judge. Bush's defense sinks lower when he uses his wife to go out and spin that people opposing Miers are doing so because they are sexist (poor Hillary, Mrs. Bush already milked this cow that is why her message is not getting heard!).
3. The path to citizenship using the Z visa is not amnesty - huh? Even McCain agreed it was a form of amnesty before he became the republican presumptive nominee.
4. We will stay the course in Iraq because Ramsfeld assures me it will get better. Americans are lucky to have Ramsfeld lead this operation at the pentagon. Post 2006 elections, Ramsfeld has resigned for personal reasons - huh?
5. These are the 6 reasons we need to invade Iraq. Over 65% of americans agree, understand and support Bush. We are still waiting for the reasons why we stayed AFTER the 6 original goals were accomplishes (you know the 'mission accomplished'?)
If the guy who brings you to the dance picks up another partner, it's time to re-write the rules. |
|
The term "neoconservative" is meaningless at this point. When the term was invented, it did describe someone like Charles Krauthammer, who was once a liberal speechwriter for Walter Mondale, but had a change of heart and became a new (neo) conservative. Sometimes melding the two, left and right, and becoming a big-government conservative. But today, its a term used only by its critics and agnostics. It's like the word "Negro." No blacks use that word anymore. Only old folks and critics use it.
|
|
It is already known that the Bush administration valued loyalty above all qualities, how else did Scotty get his job? But to say that if a president is lying to the public that elected him, the people who know the truth of it should keep their mouths shut is just about the dumbest assertation to make. Let's let him run wild with our policies and do irreperable damage to our country just because he's commander and chief. DUMB. How about we stop him before he can tank us anymore? Anyone who aided him should be indicted on treason and hung by my account. No one finds it odd that while they say Scotty was out of the loop, he couldn't have known the way we made those decisions? Basicly saying that yes, he was right, but how could he know? Huge slip up.
Point, the president is not King. That his staff and he have lied their hind tails off to us should be reason enough to arrest them all because of the extent of the damages. 4000 lives, billions of dollars, being the laighing stock of the international community, someonjes gotta say why it is we are in the perdicament.
I suppose you would rather the truth be revealed when the perps are all residents in other countries, though the world court will probably indict them on war crimes, living off the money they have syphoned out of our public coffers. That would be the best time to say that the liars lied and fleeced us. |
|
Scott McClellan's book has done the public and future historians a service. He has confirmed what old school conservatives have been writing and saying about the Bush administration for the past five years. He surrounded himself with a bunch of utopian Trotskyites.
"Bush's real motivation for war
The president's real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote."
http://www.ajc.com/meetro/content/news/stories/2008/05/27/m cclellanbook_0527.html
Now go back five years to April 5, 2003. Israeli Journalist Ari Shavit writes
"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible
Charles Krauthammer:
It's an ambitious experiment, Krauthammer admits, maybe even utopian, but not unrealistic. After all, it is inconceivable to accept the racist assumption that the Arabs are different from all other human beings, that the Arabs are incapable of conducting a democratic way of life.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=28027 9
In the last year of his life William F. Buckley said the Iraq war will destroy the conservative movement. It has. The NeoCons these people are a menace to society They should be expelled from participation in public life |
|
|
the only important question is whether or not the allegations in his book are true. Whether he is out for cash, whether he will ever get another job, whether he is disloyal, are all trival compared to the allegations he is making. |
|
|
If you go to Amazon and click on the link for his book, there is a section that says, "Customers who bought this item also bought..." Take a good look at the books in the list. It's seems like only the LEFT wing are buying his books. This is confirmation on who is audience was. |
|
[sacrifice of honor]
If his allegations are even remotely true, he sacrificed his honor long ago when he refused to stand up for the truth and deliberately parroted lies.
Penning a bio years after the time when distributing this information to the American people might have made a difference (and possibly saved 4,000 American and scores of Iraqi lives) is just icing on the cake.
|
|
|
|