Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Michael Reagan :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Matter of Loyalty
by Michael Reagan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


It's amazing what some people will do for 30 pieces of silver.

Scott McClellan was given the signal honor of being the spokesman for the president of the United States, a distinction few Americans have ever achieved. Being the spokesman for the world's most powerful political figure is no small thing, and I'm sure that the men and women who have held the post view their service as an honor more given that deserved.

It doesn't appear as if McClellan sees it that way. He is not the first press secretary to be forced out of the job, and he won't be the last. But he'll be the first to sink his teeth into the hand that gave him the job in the first place.

It is a tough job, especially when the spokesman of a president the liberal media despises wears a large bull's eye on his chest. It's an even tougher job when the person who holds the job is clearly not up to it, as was the case with McClellan. He was an easy target for the nastier members of the largely hostile White House Press corps.

His lack of competence is what cost him the job, and it is now obvious that he left the White House burning with resentment over his forced departure. The fact that he had held the job as long as he did obviously created no sense of gratitude for his having been given the post to begin with.

His act of vengeance has delighted the media who once excoriated him. Their onetime foe is now their hero, an ally in their never-ending campaign to portray George Bush, a good and decent man, as a bumbling fool if not an outright criminal.

They greet his alleged revelations with none of the skepticism with which they once treated his pronouncements from the White House press room podium, accepting, for example, his attempt to lay the blame for what Richard Armitage did in leaking the name of Valerie Plame on his old friend and Texas colleague, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby.

They let out a great cheer when he joins the chorus of Democrats and their media henchmen attributing the Iraq war to sleazy, dishonest and hugely deceptive White House maneuvering when the real facts show otherwise.

As David Horowitz and his co-author Ben Johnson write in "Party of Defeat," George Bush acted solely to enforce a United Nations ultimatum blatantly ignored by Saddam Hussein.

Wrote the authors: "The United States went to war because it had concluded that Saddam Hussein could not be trusted to observe the arms agreement embedded in the UN resolutions. Twelve years of defiance and obstruction leading up to, and including the December 7 deadline had established that fact. Even then, the Bush administration was prepared to forego war if Saddam and his sons left the country and went into exile, thus allowing the terms of the UN resolutions to be met."

Scott McClellan surely knew this but chose to ignore it, preferring to give ammunition to those who want to advance a false view of the conflict's genesis.

In the end, it's all about money. An honest book about his experiences wouldn't sell. If he wanted to sell his book, it had to dish up dirt, even when there wasn't any underfoot.

When I wrote my first book, "On the Outside Looking in," I had publishers waving huge royalties in my face if I would only sling mud at my father. They couldn't understand that there was simply no mud in his life and work, and I wasn't willing to create any for them for the sake of big bucks.

Too bad Scott McClellan, blinded by the glitter of those 30 pieces of sliver, didn't see it that way.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Michael Reagan, the eldest son of Ronald Reagan, is heard daily by over 5 million listeners via his nationally syndicated talk radio program, “The Michael Reagan Show.”
Loyalty Is No More.
As I see it for the most part loyalty is a dying attribute in our country. So many of our leaders, and the populace have put " The Bottom Line " ahead of loyalty.
They are outsourcing our jobs, our infrastructure and their loyalty to their country and countrymen.

fit right in
McClellan would fit in nicely in a McCain administration - a backstabbing press secretary for a backstabbing politician.

Chris
He'd fit better in a hellary admin. Of course, she would not only back stab him........I hope you feel as much loyalty to the dims when your paycheck won't even buy your food for the week. I forgot......you can eat your dim loyalty! Good luck!

Loyalty
Loyalty is not the issue--as I see it. Honor is. This man is not honorable. I'd like to know how much Soros paid him and if Joe Wilson ghost wrote the book. Follow the money trail-----

From a family of backstabbers . . .
His papa stabbed his buddy LBJ in the back, his ultraliberal mayor mama became a Republican to try to stab a fellow Democrat (Jake Pickle) and then became an Independent to stab a fellow Republican (Perry). Honor among the McClellans is hard to find.

Reagan writes:
"As David Horowitz and his co-author Ben Johnson write in "Party of Defeat," George Bush acted solely to enforce a United Nations ultimatum blatantly ignored by Saddam Hussein."

Is this where republicans like Reagan now stand? Party loyalty before honor?

My opinion on this is that Bush has been a highly incompetent president, and has sought counsel from a bunch of neocon warmongering bafoons. He has got us involved in a war and conflict and a nation building effort, that will cost our economy trillions, and has undermined the constitution of the United States. The only good thing one can say about his presidency is the appointment of judges to the supreme court and he almost botched that.

In 2000, Bush actually ran for president under a much more "conservative" agenda excoriating costly Clintonian - nation building/war effort in Bosnia....and wanted the US to take a more modest approach to foreign policy....how far we have come.

The fact that McClellan has come out to state what is probably obvious should surprise no one. The whole political system in this country is hopeless. We have strayed so far what our founding father's envisioned.

Shame on all of those who would vote for status quo in McCain, Hillary, or Obama. We are well on our way to Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".

Bob Barr in 2008.


Politics be damned
Making decisions on what will keep our country safe and ignoring which way the polls blow is heroic in my book. Ignoring the cheap shots the leftists/jihadists among us lob. A gentleman. A dedication to keep our Supreme Court on the side of the Constitution. Not getting in the gutter with the namecalling Dems. An honest man--doing the best possible with the continuous blocking of the traitorous Dems. My Hero is George Bush.

It's inherited.
As we Texans know, this guy comes by his treachery and dishonesty naturaly. His momma has proven herself to be a big scum bag in Texas politics and I wish the president had considered this before giving him the job. President Bush is just too trusting!

Politics be damned
Making decisions on what will keep our country safe and ignoring which way the polls blow is heroic in my book. Ignoring the cheap shots the leftists/jihadists among us lob. A gentleman. A dedication to keep our Supreme Court on the side of the Constitution. Not getting in the gutter with the namecalling Dems. An honest man--doing the best possible with the continuous blocking of the traitorous Dems. My Hero is George Bush.

Mr. McClellan
I honestly did not know much about him, Nor did I really notice him, He is no Tony Snow. He was there then he was gone. But now knowing what he was capable of. He didn't deserve the loyalty he was given by the people who brought him with them to the top. You can tell a person of character by their actions. This was a weak action. A victims action, lashing out is a child's way of fighting back.
Sadly, Many people view President Bush as weak or weak minded. When really he shows true strength by not playing victim or bending to outside pressures. The President must have, at one time, saw at least a bit of promise in the seemingly weak Mr. McClellan. It would be interesting to find out what that was.

Loyalty and Honor???
It doesn’t matter if he is “loyal” or not. One doesn’t expect loyalty and honor in Washington DC among either party. One does however expect people when talking about non-political theory to tell the truth. This book, based on what I have seen in the press, is a pack of lies.

This is one of those things that I apply the 100 year rule to, or maybe in this case the 200 year rule. What would have happened in 1808 if a former colleague with a grudge wrote a pack of lies about you? Why he would be on the village green within a short period of time defending his libel with a dueling pistol.

That was the only way to defend “loyalty and honor” in Washington (or NYC or Philly).

Loyalty
Scott McClellan may be a pretty tacky human being, but comparing him to Judas is a bit much. George W. Bush is indeed a "good and decent man," but he's not Jesus Christ.

It's in his genes
His ancestor, General George McClellan, similarly turned on his benefactor, Abraham Lincoln, after Lincoln finally had to ease him out due to his incompetence.

It's irrelevant...
So McClellan takes a shot at Bush and the administration. So what? It's nothing that we haven't heard before and it is meaningless unless Obama is going to running against Bush.

With Bush's rating down at 30% there are a lot of people who could trash the president better than McClellan does. Save your money.

LMAO
I love it but natter away folks more and more the story is coming out. I can't wait for the full blown investigations next year. My hope is that the whole tired Bush Regime stand before the Hague and defend themsselves for crimes against humanity. Three admitted waterboarding incidents coupled with over 30 admitted "died undergoing stressed interrogations" make that step nearly inevitable. Perhaps you folks should be asking the real question: why so many generals and government civil servants have left government in disgust as well as people like Scott and Colin and...

Appeasing the bullies
Perhaps this maroon believes that by throwing his boss to the wolves, his bullies will become his friends.

He has thrown a rock in the water and when the ripples die away, it will sink to the remainder table and he will be forgotten. And the bullies will have forgotten him.

More Lies
I just watched a segment on CNN with a liberal from “Ethicsguy.com” discussing the so-called ethics of Scott McClellan doing his tell-all book. The discussion was sickening. Of course it is ethical chimes the idiot, there is no statute of limitations on telling the truth.

This ignores two major facts. First off there is bound to be a non-disclosure contract that forbids these so-called tell-all books and second off it is rather obvious from the Katrina discussion that he is lying. Why do I say that? Because everything the media has ever said about Katrina has been a lie.

The real secret to decoding these tell-all books is to answer a big question with regard to the New York publishing industry. And that question is “What will sell the most books and get the most up front free advertising from the media”? If Scot McClellan had written a book Entitled “Media Myths and Lies about the Bush Admin” or “The Truth About Katrina and Media Lies” would the MSM be touting this book now? Would the NY publishing industry pay a significant advance for such a book? I think the answer to that question is obvious. He would have had to work up the sales pitch himself and the only publisher who would touch it would be the Regnery Publishing.

Hal Drunkahue
Hal burps: "[hic] LMAO!"

Hey moron, try reading the Constitution. Bush can make any case he wants, as can ANY POTUS, for sending the troops to war but ONLY CONGRESS can approve it. ONLY Congress can fund it.

In your BDS, you overlook that tiny fact. Take another swig Drunkahue, you're way off the mark.

As for McCellan, two things arise from his book. One, why didn't he resign in protest? Two, why didn't he SAY SOMETHING 18 MONTHS AGO!?

He'll have to back up his pablum in front of Henry "the rat" Waxman.

What I find hilarious is that Scotty protested TWO PREVIOUS tell all books and then wrote HIS! haha. Maybe he's a closet liberal.

BTW, did you ever get around to answering my question on WHY you backed Hanoi John Fonda Kerry in 2004 AFTER this article came out on him?

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0408,schanberg,51276,1.htm l

Guess you really DON'T support the troops.

http://noliberalspin.blogtownhall.com/

Beating libs about the head and shoulders like Hal Drunkahue going after a bottle of MD 20/20.

AudiR10
Ol Scotty has to fess up before Ol Scoop Nostrils himself! THAT will be a confession to watch.

The responses will be: "I don't remember." "I think so but I'm not sure." "I plead the fifth amendment."

Typical,Hal
Boy Hal, your BDS is getting worse by the day. I suspect that when a new President takes office, you'll shrivel up and die like the wicked witch. By golly, you'll have nothing to bittch about then, hey? Life will be all tax and spend and you'll be happy as a pig in sheisse.

Reaping and Sowing Disloyalty!
Bush is the most disloyal president in history. He is disloyal the Marines he tried for a false accusation. He is disloyal to the American people with his love of Mexicans and illegals. He is disloyal to his base that elected him. He is disloyal to our border agents. He is disloyal to the constitution. And on and on and on....
Like begets like.
Loyalty breeds loyalty!
Disloyalty breeds disloyalty.

Scottie Will Get His
Like most politicians, Scott will get his from writing the book - probably the last. But politicians get theirs by betraying our trust in becoming lobbyists and sell their soul to the highest bidder -- irrespective of friend or foe. McClellan is typical of the Bush associates - incompetent, as in Harriet Meirs, Katrina Brownie, Libby, Rove, etc. If Bush selects, it has to be wrong. I was wrong twice, voting for him but with no choice except to stay home. I'll not vote again until a conservative show up and I don't think that will happen. How can you speak of a person being disloyal? His job was to explain that which Jorge Bush screwed up.

No Pride
The whole government has no honor, loyalty, pride or respect for our country. All they seem to care about is giving the illegals a free ride and put this country in third world.

We need a real honorable man for president which is ALAN KEYES.

If the MSM was so bias towards
liberalism and Commiecrats they would stir up their needed controversy by reviewing a book that actually supported Bush. That would be a real controversy because it is beginning to look like the only person left in the country that supports him is his mother.

Of course that will never happen because first they will never find anyone to write the book and second the idea of an article supportive of Bush is anathema to the MSM.

Low Life McCelllan
is such a fake, no one should buy his book, for those out there who want to read it go to your LIBRARY, do not give one dime of your hard earned money so that he becomes rich.

Maybe he is hopping for a job if Obama or Hilery get in? This man will say and do anything to find work.

Joy

Robert
I don't believe that he press secretary takes an oath of office. After all he's not an elected official. He's simply a bureacrat a hired person if you will.

Nevertheless I agree that had Mr. McCllelan had the courage of his convictions he should have resigned rather than participate in what he now says is unethical behavior. Somehow it seems easier to go with the flow and take revenge later than to do the right thing when it counts. Of course there are those thiry pieces of silver to consider or given the poster that pointed out that GW is not Jesus perhaps Danegeld would be better.

Low Life McCelllan
is such a fake, no one should buy his book, for those out there who want to read it go to your LIBRARY, do not give one dime of your hard earned money so that he becomes rich.

Maybe he is hopping for a job if Obama or Hilery get in? This man will say and do anything to find work.

Joy

Wrong!
Loyalty is a distant second to human life.


McClellan is just wrong
I'm sorry that Scott McClellan, like many posters on this blog are not historically and intellectually astute to see the big picture.

I hate to remind you (and all of you with Bush Derangement Syndrome simply won't believe it), but David Kay and Charles Duelfer (the arms inspectors) said that Saddam had merely suspended his weapons programs and was playing a shell game until the sanctions were removed, then he fully intended to reconstitute chem, bio & nuclear programs. He was getting richer off the oil-for-food program and terrorists were freely flowing in and out of Iraq. They said Saddam was even more dangerous than we thought.

Love to all.

Haha..
All I've heard from the Bush supporters and cronies are ad hominem attacks about McClellan.

Why are you not discussing the points he brings up? Why are you not discussing the ISSUES? Can you prove he was wrong?

The thing is, McClellan has thankfully written down what 80% of America already knows. And for that, I say THANK YOU, Scott McClellan.

It's too easy
pianogirl wrote: "Why are you not discussing the points he brings up? Why are you not discussing the ISSUES? Can you prove he was wrong?"

I just did with WMDs 101. Michael Reagan did with his quote from Horowitz. It's too easy.

Bush is smarter than all his critics.

Love to all.

Mike Reagan wrote
"Too bad Scott McClellan, blinded by the glitter of those 30 pieces of sliver, didn't see it that way".

Eh, I doubt that Scotty even bargained that high--more likely THREE coppers.

For El Rexbo (#8): Is it possible that Bush gave him the post out of PITY (even if grossly misplaced)?

For heresyarch
"In 2000, Bush actually ran for president under a much more "conservative" agenda excoriating costly Clintonian - nation building/war effort in Bosnia....and wanted the US to take a more modest approach to foreign policy....how far we have come."

In 2000 Bush also ran on a policy that regime change in Iraq was needed. Reagan is correct in his reference to the book by Horowitz and Johnson. WMD in Iraq was just one of many items on Bush's list of valid reasons for deposing Saddam, and a secondary item at that.

And for pianogirl:

McClellan's claim that Plame-gate was the last straw is total BS. Plame-gate itself was total BS.

And since we're talking about "honor", where is the honor in Richard Armitage, Colin Powell, Patrick Fitzgerald, and Robert Novak? All of these guys knew who the real leaker was but allowed false rumors and false scandal to dominate the headlines for two years. They were even willing to allow Scooter Libby to spend 30 months in prison for something they all knew that Armitage had done.

For you and the the rest of the left, don't even begin to talk to me about honor. You're as partisan and hypocritical about that as you are about references to Hitler (see Ann Coulter's column if you don't understand this analogy).

Myabe Disloyal..But Not Wrong
You may not like his loyality, but are his facts wrong?

Is loyality and honor more important than truth?

There is very little critique of his facts and claims. The counter-attacks are against him personally. "Not the Scott I knew".."He wasn't privy to information".."Did this for money"...But no one wnats to tak on his claims.

The tatctics McClellan deplores in the book is now being used against him.

There are other aspects of this book that should be discussed as well. Especially how Washington works and the press works. He speaks of the "Permant Campaign" menatlity used by both the Clinton an dBush White House that essentially keeps us uninformed as "The press amplifies the talking points of one or both parties in its coverage, thereby spreading distortions, half-truths, and occasionally outright lies in an effort to seize the limelight and have something or someone to pick on. And by overemphasizing conflict and controversy and by reducing complex and important issues to convenient, black-and-white story lines and seven-second sound bites the media exacerbate the problem,


This war in Iraq is a disaster and his point of Bush's lack of self-reflection, such as the interview with Russert is very telling.

But this is systematic for Bush and his loyalist and many here at TH. There is just continued self-deception and denial to justifiy a bad and wrong decision to go to war. There is no self-reflection by movement conservatives. There is no personal responsibility. Just attack those who disagree.

You need to wake up and consider the possibility rather go right into attack mode.


Myabe Disloyal..But Not Wrong
You may not like his loyality, but are his facts wrong?

Is loyality and honor more important than truth?

There is very little critique of his facts and claims. The counter-attacks are against him personally. "Not the Scott I knew".."He wasn't privy to information".."Did this for money"...But no one wnats to tak on his claims.

The tatctics McClellan deplores in the book is now being used against him.

There are other aspects of this book that should be discussed as well. Especially how Washington works and the press works. He speaks of the "Permant Campaign" menatlity used by both the Clinton an dBush White House that essentially keeps us uninformed as "The press amplifies the talking points of one or both parties in its coverage, thereby spreading distortions, half-truths, and occasionally outright lies in an effort to seize the limelight and have something or someone to pick on. And by overemphasizing conflict and controversy and by reducing complex and important issues to convenient, black-and-white story lines and seven-second sound bites the media exacerbate the problem,


This war in Iraq is a disaster and his point of Bush's lack of self-reflection, such as the interview with Russert is very telling.

But this is systematic for Bush and his loyalist and many here at TH. There is just continued self-deception and denial to justifiy a bad and wrong decision to go to war. There is no self-reflection by movement conservatives. There is no personal responsibility. Just attack those who disagree.

You need to wake up and consider the possibility rather go right into attack mode.


GunnyG©
"Hey moron, try reading the Constitution. Bush can make any case he wants, as can ANY POTUS, for sending the troops to war but ONLY CONGRESS can approve it. ONLY Congress can fund it. "

Hi my nasty little mercenary how are you today? Did I say war crimes? I said crimes against humanity. War crimes he almost certainly has wiggle room

"As for McCellan, two things arise from his book. One, why didn't he resign in protest? Two, why didn't he SAY SOMETHING 18 MONTHS AGO!?"

I have no idea. I am just glad he spoke. I mean a crony of Bush the torturer you would not expect to have ethics would you?

"...What I find hilarious is that Scotty protested TWO PREVIOUS tell all books and then wrote HIS! haha. Maybe he's a closet liberal."

Nope this is the exact behavior your would expect from your extreme conservatives - remember your number one commandment: every man for himself. Why would he behave differently?


Betrayal goes beyond McClellan
It is disheartening to see that so many posters here do not understand asymmetrical warfare as practiced by terrorists. The purpose is to kill so many women and children that the population is terrorized into submission.
Saddam did this with Kurds, Shia and anyone else who dared stand up to him.

After he was toppled, various factions (including Al-Qaida and Iran)have tried the same tactics to have their way with the population of Iraq. Thank God the Iraqis are turning on those who would only bring death and repression.

Too bad their tactics have worked with Americans. 70% of Americans have turned their backs on the innocent Iraqis, the American military and George W. Bush.

Bush is just like you, only smarter and more compassionate.

Love to all.

For svpallava
Bush made a lot of mistakes in appointments and hiring people to fill key jobs. He allowed dozens, maybe hundreds, of snooty, resentful Clinton appointees and hirees to remain in their posts at State, the FBI, and the CIA.

Do George Tenet and Harriet Meiers ring a bell?

McClelland is just one more example of how trying to be nice instead of practical has undone so much of the Bush Presidency.

But the left is incapable of grasping this concept, as the only lens through which they are willing to view Bush is as an "evil" man. This includes leftists who, technically, have no right to use the word evil since their moral relativism and, in some cases, outright atheism precludes the very existence of evil. More leftist hypocrisy.


Let's Remember
that Scott McLellan is only one of several the Bush insiders who basically tell the same story. Paul Oneil anyone?

I love conservatives who have this self important belief in "principle" and despise "moral relativism", until it comes to questions of actual truth. Then truth is irrelevant and loyalty is what's important.

McLellan was on the inside and is reporting what he saw. Other on the inside report the same thing. Live with it.

Oh, but, JACK.....
"McClellan was doing it for the $$$$$."

After supporting he Bush administration's profligacy in literally toppling the economy, sinking the dollar, promulgating 4,000 deaths of our young men and women, the hypocrisy is PRICELESS.

When, O God, will they see the error of their ways?

Jack is wrong, too.
Scott is not "reporting what he saw"; he is giving opinions on what he remembers.

He says the War in Iraq was "a serious strategic blunder". That is not a fact, but an opinion coming from a source not known for his expertise on military strategy.

The War in Iraq was military brilliance that was won in 13 days. The occupation has been troubling because of asymmetrical warfare (see my post at 9:43 am).

As Ralph Peters so eloquenty states in this morning's NY Post, "In the course of a war - any war - the situation changes, enemies evolve and goals shift. A war to preserve the Union becomes a war to end slavery; a war to defeat one set of totalitarian systems empowers a new network of tyrannies. It's a rare war whose end can be forecast neatly at its outset.
And you don't get any do-overs."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/postopinion/opedcolumn ists/the_quit_iraq_time_travelers_112963.htm

Jack, you and McClellan are dead wrong and Bush is smarter than both of you. Live with it.

Love to all.



Apple Doesn't Fall Too Far From the Tree
This is the guy who's only job before going to the White House to serve as staffer under Ari Fleisher was running his mother's awful campaigns in Texas. This is the guy who's father was disbarred and wrote a book saying the LBJ and oil were the reason for JFK's assassination.

Bush IS WAY TOO trusting. He gave this dingbat a break and ...

On top of all that, he was an abismal Press Secretary. The first time he came out, I was thinking, you have to be kidding me, THIS after Ari?

SHAME ON MR. McCLELLAN, shame indeed.

Salt is EXPERT ON TERRORISM.............
Salt
Location: GA

Reply # 2
Date: May 29, 2008 - 9:43 AM EST Betrayal goes beyond McClellan
It is disheartening to see that so many posters here do not understand asymmetrical warfare as practiced by terrorists. The purpose is to kill so many women and children that the population is terrorized into submission.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Salt, your claim to knowledge of terrorism, is at best arrogance towards the truth. Terrorist care little about the average person or their needs, only as cannon fodder. And since we where at war with the terrorist, why did this administration believe it should go after Saddam. One and only one answer.
Saddam had threatend George's Daddy's life and Clinton had involved us in a Police action to aide freedom loving Europeans, in the Bulkans.
Oh heaven forbid a Dem out do us Republicans.
If you are so expertise in Terrorism, why are you not in the military. No way, your ever so placating soft voice is an irratent to all males, with military knowledge.
And as to why the Iraqis Military has begun to win ground in Iraq, is not the Shi-ites solely, but the fact that Sunni's now are back in their old jobs, as Officers, and cadre. Sunni's and highly Educated Shi-ites run most Arab nations together. The majority ofShi-ites are ill educated and do not interprut the Koran for themselves, they follow blindly behing a Mullah.
Just like you follow Bush and Cheney, dumb, blind and ignorant.

What surprises me...
is the laudatory comments regarding this book. Has anyone that had read this book made these comments. One thing that Bush did is the true internal enemies of this country have shown their true colors. It started when the Florida supreme court illegally gave the election to Bush's opponent. The Florida consitution required the conflict to be settled by the state legislature not the court. McClellan is telling this story now because he is no longer on the inside and he is being paid to do it. He will have the support of every liberal, socialist, communist, and enemy of the US on this side.

Semantics and high-sounding imagery
"Honor," "Loyalty," "The Patriot Act," all neoconservative/media buzzwords that can be fairly categorized as propaganda.

We have all been scammed. WAKE UP, America!

congress is responsable to us
the issue overlooked by the liberal media and their henchmen is,bush could not have done what he did in response to 911 without permission from our elected representatives in congress.at the time the congress weighed its options and decided to look patriotic,for the sake of their own reputations.if bush is a stupid fool what does that make those who supported the war in the begining,including,scott mcmuffin ?? you decide...

understanding McClellan
Scott McClellan's betrayal of Bush is very easy for those who follow Texas politics to understand.
Here's a CLUE:
both McClellan boys serving in the Bush Administration left in 2006; their Momma was not embraced by Texas establishment GOPers and so split and ran Independent for Gov. in that same year. MUCHO bad feelings all around (as Texas campaigns can get, this one had enough "mud" to go around and promises were made and were broken), and the McClellan boys were not the only Bush followers from his days in Texas politics to leave his Administration in 2006.
I'm sure the hefty publishing royalties for his pocket helped as balm for he and his family's wounds.

Greed over Loyalty
For me, it is not so much a matter of loyalty as it is a demonstration of greed. If McClellan's book is the truth, as he will surely claim, then his tenure at the White House and his parting words were completely disingenuous. He may claim that he was blinded by "propaganda" while serving the president, but it seems to me that he is really blinded by fortune. I don't claim to fully understand McClellan's motivation, but I know that his fortune will come at a price, a price that all his fortune will never be able to buy back.

Salt
The war in Iraq was won in 13 days. Really? Tell the 4000 plus families of dead soldiers that. That idea is one of the most transparently dishonest spin jobs ever.

That Iraq was a strategic blunder is an opinion shared by 70% of Americans and a whole lot of military folks.


Just a Thinker
"Fall Too Far From the Tree..."

I love the way you crazies immediately attack the person, family and reputation. You folks are so disgusting it never ceases to amaze the levels of nastiness you can sink through

"Bush IS WAY TOO trusting. He gave this dingbat a break and ..."

No Bush the torturer is incompetent. We have had stupid and brilliant presidents but thankfully few this incompetent

"...SHAME ON MR. McCLELLAN, shame indeed. "

From what I have seen here I doubt you folks know shame

Butcher
You are a simpleton.

Wiseone and Salt
Great posts! Gosh darn it I guess I am going to have to get up earlier and beat you guys to the threads.

As always I enjoy reading you keep up the good work even though some people are just too dense to get it.

Changing the subject
Remember Salt's dictum: When confronted with intellectually honest debate, Liberals change the subject or call names.

Several of us on this thread have refuted Scott's opinions. They are like noses, everyone has one. And they can be wrong.

Bush is smarter than all his critics.

Love to all.

Lolo1
Thanks, you are too kind.

Soros Connection
1.) Has anybody noticed on Little Green Footballs that the publisher, Perseus, is apparently owned by George Soros? Scotty might have gotten more than 30 pieces of silver for this hit piece.

2.) Still amazes me when I hear liberals claiming to bleed from the aorta over our 4,000 dead military personnel. These are the same people who speak loathing of all Americans whose mindset would lead them to enlist in the first place. I guess the only good soldier is a dead one.

3.) Yes, Scotty is a Judas. It's increasingly accurate to portray Bush as Jesus: you folks would crucify him in a heartbeat if you could only get your hands on him.

BTW, Integrity defined
From the Army FM 22-100:

"People of integrity do the right thing not because it is convenient or because they have no choice. They choose the right thing because their character permits no less. Conducting yourself with integrity has three parts:

Separating what's right from what's wrong.

Always acting according to what you know to be right, even at personal cost.

Saying openly that you're acting on your understanding of what's right versus wrong."

NOTE: Does not apply to McClellan.

Love to all.

To Hal, the Thinker....
Hal, if you're a thinker at all, you're a selective thinker. And you're also rude. How can you claim that president Bush is incompetent when he has served our country honorably for two terms during some of the most trying times in our history? Please watch your words, as extreme terms usually don't serve reality. After all, I'm sure you're not as dumb as I think you are.

It wasn't the money
Doesn't everyone know a little guy who never was man enough to do or say the right thing, but always popped up later to stiff "his enemies" when their backs were turned? That's "Little Scottie".

If you can recall his press conferences, you'll remember that he never had what it takes to even try to stand up to the likes of Helen Thomas. Her vitriolic insults went by Scottie unchallenged, due to a choking problem he's probably always had. I'm sure that it killed the little guy to see people like Tony Snow and even tiny Ms. Perino display more testosterone than he ever hoped to have had. I'll bet Scottie grew up with a nasty red fanny due to all the wet towel snaps he endured throughout his formative years.

You have to say one thing. Scottie's growing up. He showed President Bush what happens to people who don't support Scottie's mommy.

I'm sure that, after she read his book, Mrs. M. gave her little guy a great big hug for being such a grown up man, and I'll bet that all those towel snappers that used his butt for a bullseye are really impressed as well.


Jack/Salt
"That Iraq was a strategic blunder is an opinion shared by 70% of Americans and a whole lot of military folks."

Isn't it over 80% now? I think at least a year and a half ago the number of military and military familes saying blunder passed 50%. I know Ron Paul and Obama are getting the lion's share of military donations

Stashy
"...Hal, if you're a thinker at all, you're a selective thinker. And you're also rude. How can you claim that president Bush is incompetent when he has served our country honorably for two terms during some of the most trying times in our history?"

Rude? How can you say that? The Bush Regime has been a near total failure. There is nothing honorable about torture and secret prisons, allowing the organization that attacked us to go free and prosper and I could go on and on Bush is many things, honorable is not one of them. This administration has hardly been faced with "...some of the most trying times in our history" 911 was a massive disaster and a wake up call for action. Sadly, it is becoming more and more clear, that the administration panicked and then ignored the event to engage it its own agenda of redesigning the Middle East

Is there anything new here?
Scott McClellan's alleged "bombshells" are just the same warmed over stuff the left has been pushing since the war began; he's not saying anything new. He is only getting this adulation from the press because he is a former Bush staffer who is saying what they want to hear.

The fact is, nothing that McClellan has said here can be verified as a fact, it is all his particular analysis and viewpoint. What he THINKS is not FACT, no matter what the media and the left would like to believe. We all have our opinins on what has happened in the war or in the White House, but just because we think it doesn't make it factual. The same principle applies to Scott McClellan and his book.

As for loyalty, there isn't much to be had in DC especially when a person gets forced out of his high profile position. But like others have said, and I said elsewhere yesterday:If things were so ba, and he had such misgivings, why stay on? It is not honesty to try to rewrite history using hindsight, and it is not bravery to join the howling media mob that has spent the last 7 years attempting to bring down a President.

Salt
Great posts! As an interested observer I am always impressed as the Bush haters of war scream about the dead soldiers (volunteers all) but continue to ignore the illegal invasion from the south that kills more Americans in a year than our casualties in Iraq. Selective Ammenesia anyone?

An irrelevant book
From all the posts I have read and all the articles written and news accounts on TV not one person has addressed one very salient fact. A truthful account of any given period will contain some affirmation of speculation of pundits and reporters. Likewise it will contain facts completely debunking those same speculations. Scott's book contains no such revelations and instead follows the MSM and liberal BSD ranting point by point.
It is Scott who will suffer most in the end. I have no idea how much he was paid for his book, but I do know no amount of money is worth a man depriving himself of the name of "trustworthy".
Being a fairly young man he may find employment, even monetary security, but never being trusted again will be a burden that will weigh him down for the rest of his life.

Nobility
"...As an interested observer I am always impressed as the Bush haters of war scream about the dead soldiers (volunteers all)..."

Oh tell me, do volunteers make their lives worth less or we mean we don't have to care for them as much? A hugh chunk of the greatest generation were volunteers; entire regiments were volunteers in the civil war and the minute men were volunteers - please tell me what difference does that mean? What are you trying to say? Explain

"but continue to ignore the illegal invasion from the south that kills more Americans in a year than our casualties in Iraq. Selective Ammenesia anyone? "

No simply not true they are more peaceful then most citizens and illegal as in as illegal as a parking ticket. Besides the whole immigrant "problem" is yet another Bush failure to police industry

Selective Thinking Hal
You really know how to exaggerate poll results to serve your purpose. It is true that most Americans are currently opposed to the war, which doesn't surprise me. After all, who would be FOR a war? If the war was a strategic blunder, then the blame for that blunder has to be shared by most of congress and most of the American people, because there was widespread support at the time. However, whether it was a strategic blunder or not will be judged by your grandchildren. What would be a blunder would be for us to retreat without the situation stabilizing. I know that some may not agree with that, but then, one would need a spine to understand.

As for your premise that military families think it was a blunder, I'm not sure which military families you are referring to. I live overseas in a military community, and our thinking is not as simplistic as yours. No doubt blunders have been made - I made one yesterday - but to generalize shows how little you really understand.

Stashy writes...
"What would be a blunder would be for us to retreat without the situation stabilizing. I know that some may not agree with that, but then, one would need a spine to understand."

PW: I'll go to Oz to ask for a spine if you'll come with me and ask for a brain.

Nee-GunnyG
Here come The Liberal Morons celebrating their CHERISHED LIBERAL VALUES: Lying, Cheating and Cowardice.

BTW, did you see where Hal Drunkahue propositioned Woody on Malkin’s Thread? Read the following post written by Hal Drunkahue:

Hal Donahue Location: PA
Reply # 360
Date: May 28, 2008 - 10:09 PM EST
Woody
"You are yet another reminder of those juvenile lefty's who still chant "...it was only a B.J...."

You just don't get it."

Woody from Iowa did you ever get or give one?

The left loved Scott, didn't they?


pianogirl Location: GA
Reply # 7
Date: May 29, 2008 - 9:06 AM EST
Subject: Haha..
All I've heard from the Bush supporters and cronies are ad hominem attacks about McClellan.

Why are you not discussing the points he brings up? Why are you not discussing the ISSUES? Can you prove he was wrong?

==========

What issues? Has he said anything the left has not been saying for years? And how can we believe either Scott or the left?

When Scott was in that job, why didn’t you agree with what he said? Are you telling me that in those days he told nothing but lies, and now he tells nothing but truth, and if so, how do you know? How can you tell the difference?

I remember what a favorite Scott was with the criminal left, I mean the tratiorist left. They always came out of the press room bragging about what they had just heard, and telling everyone what a great American Scott was.

Don’t you remember that stupid ugly old broad in the front row, always thanking him for his wonderful briefing.

And aren’t we lucky that no one has helped Mike Reagan's so-called half-brother write what he would like to make up about his dad. I don’t want to accuse Nancy of anything, but are we sure that little Ron isn’t the result of a rape?

How has he stayed so quiet, Mike, do you have some permanent way to keep him quiet? I hope.

Poor analogy, Mike; too simple


Yeah; McClellan's a back-stabber. He did it to pick up loose change; more's the pity.

However; Judas did the deed to Christ his own Savior. He kissed the Gate of heaven when he kissed Jesus. Thereafter he went to his doom.

Our good President W. is no Jesus. In fact Jesus wasn't caught unawares, since he predicted what was to come. He looked at Judas in the eye and told him; "Go-- Do what you have to do."

--- W was sand-bagged. He turned his blind side to a chubby sneak. But thank God; Bush isn't going to any crucifixion. History won't care what the guys with paper bags over their heads think.

In our not too distant future, W is going to be exonerated and given an important part in U.S. history. Because he really deserves it.

George
"Here come The Liberal Morons celebrating their CHERISHED LIBERAL VALUES: Lying, Cheating and Cowardice"

Ummm, I think you are a little confused. Bush's lies about Iraq are notorious. Cowardice? Bush was a draft dodger as was Cheney, Rumsfeld and everyone else in his cabinet except Powell.


Perry, the Spineless
Perry, your comment would be clever if your obvious naivety wasn't so serious. I presume that you propose to leave Iraq immediately, leaving behind anarchy and chaos. Not only would that be a blunder, it would mean that the 4,000 plus brave men and women that have died for the cause of freedom would have been in vain. By the way, if you want to go to OZ, I'll lead you there, since it seems apparent that you've never been out of Missouri.

Bush & History
History looks at leaders through the lens of the broad sweep of movements and shifts that change the way people live.

Communism was viewed as a noble endeavor to bring about a Marxist ideal in the 30's and 40's. By the 50's and 60's it was seen as a repressive form of government used to serve a few (party members) with the labor of many. With the perspective of history, Communism is seen as a bankrupt evil by everyone except American academics and left-wing journalists.

Bush has recognized that the global jihadist threat is real and capable of instituting an historic shift of monumental proportions, moving much of the industrialized world into 14th century caliphates.

History will bear out that Bush was right and those who have minimized the threat were naive and mistaken.

Gotta go to work. Love to all. Don't be too angry, haters. Life goes on within you and without you.

so called "wiseone" writes:
"In 2000 Bush also ran on a policy that regime change in Iraq was needed. Reagan is correct in his reference to the book by Horowitz and Johnson. WMD in Iraq was just one of many items on Bush's list of valid reasons for deposing Saddam, and a secondary item at that."


By *what* Constitutional authority? Oh, yeah, the Imperial Monarchy that the founders envisioned....that authority.

Frankly, your post is sickening and your thought process exemplifies why you have lost this "republican" to the "libertarian" party. Others are leaving in flock, too. Get ready for the republican party to go the way of the Whigs.

Plans for regime change were secret and disclosed after the fact. This fact caused "controversy" for Bush....showing evidence of his complicity with a bunch of neocon baffoons.

"For you and the the rest of the left, don't even begin to talk to me about honor. You're as partisan and hypocritical about that as you are about references to Hitler (see Ann Coulter's column if you don't understand this analogy)."

Frankly, I doubt you can call either me or "pianogirl" "the left". In fact, I see little difference between the big government leftists like Obama/Hillary believe in and the big statist that you represent that give such "power" to one man...the president. Both parties have their pet government programs to enrich themselves and secure their power.

do me a favor wiseone....look at the times of the biggest growth in government. It usually occurs under conditions of war.

Here is Bush's nomination speach in 2000, read it and weap:

http://www.2000gop.com/convention/speech/speechbush.html





Nice try, Michael, but no cigar
We can talk about McClellan's motivations forever, and we can throw out a few tired Republican talking points in a vain attempt to discredit his book. But the fact is, he simply underlines a lot of what we already knew about this shameful administration.

And to be blunt, the loyalty argument is ridiculous. Think of the Japanese who were loyal to the Emperor and the Germans who were loyal to the Fuhrer during World War II. Where did that get their own citizens---or ours?. Our highest loyalties are to God, family, and country---not flawed leaders.

Stashy is scary
Oh my. We must continue to occupy Iraq so the 4,000 who died will not have died in vain?

Who's naive?

Our soldiers died for neocon day dreams of world domiination and Bush's delusions of grandeur. An unprovoked war against a country that posed no threat to us hardly qualifies as a "cause of freedom."

I don't know what your position was before the invasion. I spotted pro-war advocates the existence of WMDs but argued the absense of an actual threat to use them against us would make such a war illegal under principles we helped establish.

I argued that no self-respecting country will long tolerate occupation by a foreign military force.

For that reason, I predicted block-by-block hostilities in the streets of Baghdad with heavy American casualties.

I argued that historic sectarian hostilities would make an Iraqi democracy a long-shot at best.

Everything I foresaw has panned out. Everything war advocates predicted turned out to be wrong. Now the pre-war prognosticators, apparently including you, are predicting chaos if we leave.

You have no credibility.

You say "apparently you've never been out of Missouri." Where does nonsense like that come from? You people are scary.

Salt writes;
"History will bear out that Bush was right and those who have minimized the threat were naive and mistaken."

Well, that is because history is written by the victors.

The fact is, if not for foreign policy blunders and involvement in other nation affairs, we could have avoided WWII, North Korea, and Vietnam. We can all thank one man, Woodrow Wilson for his legacy and involvement in a war in which we were not attached.

The same will be true for Bush. Hell, we have helped to establish a government that we may well indeed regret we established. We have trained those in Iraq who we may someday have to fight again.

Has this ever happened before? Did we not help Saddam in his stuggles against Iran?

One thing is certain: if bush is someday deemed "right".....it is most certainly his picture will be in everyone's office on every wall, plastered on every building, and the TV will be blaring the "battle hymn of the republic on the hour every hour.

Bush's speech
"Little more than a decade ago, the Cold War thawed and, with the leadership of Presidents Reagan and Bush, that wall came down.

But instead of seizing this moment, the Clinton/Gore administration has squandered it. We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence.

Our military is low on parts, pay and morale.

If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ... Not ready for duty, sir."

HAHAHAHAHAHA

"America has a strong economy and a surplus. We have the public resources and the public will -- even the bipartisan opportunities -- to strengthen Social Security and repair Medicare.

But this administration -- during eight years of increasing need -- did nothing"

Oh, the hits keep coming . .

"Tonight, in this hall, we resolve to be, not the party of repose, but the party of reform.

We will write, not footnotes, but chapters in the American story.

We will add the work of our hands to the inheritance of our fathers and mothers -- and leave this nation greater than we found it.

We know the tests of leadership. The issues are joined.

We will strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the greatest generation, and for generations to come.

Medicare does more than meet the needs of our elderly, it reflects the values of our society.

We will set it on firm financial ground, and make prescription drugs available and affordable for every senior who needs them"

Yea, like that happened







Charles from TX
what does one have to do with the other? Bill Clinton was a Draft Dodger, John Kerry is a traitor. Your point is Swiss Cheese.

More
"Today, our high taxes fund a surplus. Some say that growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend.

But they've got it backwards.

The surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money.

I will use this moment of opportunity to bring common sense and fairness to the tax code.

And I will act on principle.

On principle ... every family, every farmer and small businessperson, should be free to pass on their life's work to those they love.

So we will abolish the death tax"

What a liar

And an even bigger lie:
"The world needs America's strength and leadership, and America's armed forces need better equipment, better training, and better pay.

We will give our military the means to keep the peace, and we will give it one thing more ... a commander-in-chief who respects our men and women in uniform, and a commander-in-chief who earns their respect.

A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam.

When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming.

I will work to reduce nuclear weapons and nuclear tension in the world -- to turn these years of influence into decades of peace.

And, at the earliest possible date, my administration will deploy missile defenses to guard against attack and blackmail.

Now is the time, not to defend outdated treaties, but to defend the American people"

Yea, Bush really defended us. He spent most of the firest year in office farting hot dogs at his "Ranch" instead of holding meetings on national security.




Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar
Which made him not elligable for the draft. Plus he didn't lie us into a war with no exit strategy. Kerry was a decorated war hero, not a traitor. The crap said about him by the Swifties was not true and has been proven.

Why do you hate the troops so much?

to Hal
You insult our troops by comparing them to some inanimate object that can be "thrown under a bus." They enlisted freely, just as I did 23 years ago, and many have re-enlisted and returned to Iraq because they know they are building a better life for the Iraqis.

You like them as symbols, but you despise them as people.

Response to heresyarch
Re: Regime change

1. "By what authority?"

Answer: in 1998 the Clinton Administration and Congress overwhelming went on record for regime change in Iraq. Congress even passed a resolution on it (overwhelmingly). Prominent Democrats calling for deposing Saddam at that time included both Clintons, Kerry, Biden, and some 20 total Democrats in the Senate who sent President Clinton a letter to that effect.

Where have you been for the last 7 years that you don't know about this?

2. "Plans for regime change were secret and disclosed after the fact."

Wrong again. Condi Rice discussed this on station WJR on October 8, 2000, approximately one month before the election. You and the rest of the left were probably too busy gossiping about the Dem's "October surprise", lies about Bush using cocaine and having gotten a DUI 20-odd years prior to have noticed, but that doesn't make it "secret". It was "disclosed" prior to the election (unlike Bill Clinton's gays-in-the-military policy and the biggest tax increase in history).

3. "Frankly, I doubt you can call either me or "pianogirl" "the left". "

I didn't call you the left. If you re-read my post calmly and logically you will see that statement came my address to pianogirl. And pianogirl definitely IS a leftist.

As a matter of fact I actually agree with that toomany Republicans have become weenie moderates instead of principled conservatives, but whatever Republicans are doing does not change the fact that pianogirl is a leftist. Nor does it change your position on the political spectrum, whatever it is. Based on your posts so far, you too are a weenie moderate who verifies his position by how many others agree with him.

Lots of BSS here today
(Bush Sycophantic Syndrome).

How about the idea of loyalty to THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

How about loyalty to us?
Scott McClelland seems like a decent guy who got thrown in with a bunch of liars, and after contemplating his situation after getting thrown under the bus, decided to come clean. And nothing wrong with getting paid for it. That's free market capitalism at its finest. Rather than discuss whether his comments are true or not, the right wing is impugning his motives. Most of us would have done the same thing as McClellan if we were lied to and then instructed to pass on those lies to the press corp. And this coming from people who were supposedly our friends, whom we came to power with. Why should McClellan be loyal to them. They didn't give a crap about him. He came clean late but better late than never.

Charles
Do you remember something that intervened between 2000 and the present that changed not only the focus of the Bush Administration but the course of history? Or are you too young to remember 9/11/01?

And as for "a war with no exit strategy" what's going on in Bosnia right now and who started that WITH NO PERMISSION FROM ANYBODY? Somebody who made a few phone calls between Acts?

And a big P.S. on the Draft thing; Clinton WAS in fact susceptible to the draft; he DID in fact get an induction notice which he FALSELY responded to by promising to join the military voluntarily BUT INSTEAD he fled the country. All that stuff came out in the impeachment hearings. Were you, like, stoned or something, when all that was going on? Or maybe you're too young to remember?

Audi
The difference is that the Bosnia campaign was successfull - none of our troops were killed. We were also not lied to about it and it was handled with competence. I would not be so quick to tout 9/11 since Bin Laden is still around and Bush isn't even looking for him anymore. Furthermore, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and in fact removing Saddam just strengthened Iran by removing their biggest enemy. Remeber the Iraq/Iran war in the 80's or were you not born yet?

I recall during the 2000 campaign Bush saying that our military should not be used for nation building which is exactly what we are doing over there now. Another lie.

Scotty
Looks like he is telling the truth:
"Mike Turk served as the eCampaign director for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. As such, his tenure corresponded with that of McClellan's. No longer connected to the administration, Turk is now one of the few (if any) voices with connections to that crowd who are saying, quiet simply, that the book "What Happened" is steeped in little more than truth."


Reagan
What a sychophant. He writes:
"His lack of competence is what cost him the job, and it is now obvious that he left the White House burning with resentment over his forced departure. The fact that he had held the job as long as he did obviously created no sense of gratitude for his having been given the post to begin with"

When your president lies as much as Bush, your job as press secretary is impossible. If he really was incompetent, that shows a lack of judgement by Bush.

If you want to see a real idiot, look at Dana Perino - she didn't even know what the Cuban Missile crisis was - Now that is wicked stupid!!!!

Response to Perry (Reply #79)
Perry, I see that you will resort to the predictable tactic of "spin" when your argument is weak. I did not say that "we must continue to occupy Iraq so the 4,000 who died will not have died in vain." You can read "Reply #77" to see what I really said.

Do you truly believe that the administration seeks "world domination?" I guess you believe in the "boogie man" too.

Your long list of astute predictions is quite impressive. With all that wisdom, are you saying that if we leave Iraq, everyone in Baghdad will start planting gardens and putting up white picket fences? Apparently, you're already living in OZ.

What do you know about me to be able to make a judgment about my credibility? Isn't my opinion as worthy as yours?

As for my "Missouri" comment, I agree that was uncalled for. However, it's interesting that when I make a remark, you label it as "nonsense," but when you say I need a brain (Reply #72), I guess that is supposed to be fact.

What is really scary is when people are so blinded by their politics that they can see no good in a president that I believe is doing everything in his power to make the world a safer and more prosperous place to live for all who believe in freedom.

This Disgusts me
because it seems that the only things that sell are lies, innuendo, distortions and, most salacious of all, betrayal.

We have devolved to a populace that watches trials waged on TV (Susteren, Grace etc.)--Thanks OJ.

Books have become the new National Enquirer

And magazines have sunk even further into the fantasy-land that the American public seems to want to swill along with the Kool-Aid.

AND to HalD: If the Bush Administration is so awful, why have they escaped impeachment? Probably because there is nothing there to prosecute. YOU disgust me by advocating a trial in the Hague. Sorry for you that you distrust our own nation to police itself. PYHOOYA.

The children have been active...
While I was gone.

Great post, Wiseone. Factual and civil as usual.

Briefly, to Bobhmcishl, I hate to repeat myself, but some of you are not reading posts or you are ignoring legitimate arguments that you don't like. You claim, "Rather than discuss whether his comments are true or not, the right wing is impugning his motives."

At 10:02, Salt wrote:

Scott is not "reporting what he saw"; he is giving opinions on what he remembers.

He says the War in Iraq was "a serious strategic blunder". That is not a fact, but an opinion coming from a source not known for his expertise on military strategy.

The War in Iraq was military brilliance that was won in 13 days. The occupation has been troubling because of asymmetrical warfare (see my post at 9:43 am).

As Ralph Peters so eloquenty states in this morning's NY Post, "In the course of a war - any war - the situation changes, enemies evolve and goals shift. A war to preserve the Union becomes a war to end slavery; a war to defeat one set of totalitarian systems empowers a new network of tyrannies. It's a rare war whose end can be forecast neatly at its outset.
And you don't get any do-overs."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/postopinion/opedcolumn ists/the_quit_iraq_time_travelers_112963.htm

Liberals and McClellan are dead wrong and Bush is smarter than all of you. Live with it.

Love to all.



Stashy
"Reply # 69
... After all, who would be FOR a war?"

Bush the torturer for one was definately for a war. Iraq was rushed

"If the war was a strategic blunder, then the blame for that blunder has to be shared by most of congress and most of the American people, because there was widespread support at the time. "

There was a huge propaganda campaign and yes the people fell for it and we all paid the price but the blunder was Bush's

"However, whether it was a strategic blunder or not will be judged by your grandchildren. "

Certainly will but it will also be judged by us and we are doing it now

"What would be a blunder would be for us to retreat without the situation stabilizing. I know that some may not agree with that, but then, one would need a spine to understand."

Name calling LOL I expected that soon LOL. FYI no major candidate is calling for that

"As for your premise that military families think it was a blunder, I'm not sure which military families you are referring to. I live overseas in a military community, and our thinking is not as simplistic as yours."

My thinking is simplistic? I talk to military families every day and I served 20 years active duty and I am a patient at Walter Reed. Most think it was a blunder.

einahteb
Reply # 85
"...You like them as symbols, but you despise them as people. "

You are barking at the wrong tree fella

Mrs. Paddy
"Reply # 95
...AND to HalD: If the Bush Administration is so awful, why have they escaped impeachment? "

That is easy they only could do that since the 2006 election and their is still enough conservative rif-raf to not succeed. Unlike Conservative we are concerned about results

"Probably because there is nothing there to prosecute. YOU disgust me by advocating a trial in the Hague. Sorry for you that you distrust our own nation to police itself. PYHOOYA. "

You bet I do on something like this. I want the whole world including the US what a moral and legal disaster Bush the torturer is. Crimes against humanity deserve world attention

Salt
"...Bush has recognized that the global jihadist threat is real and capable of instituting an historic shift of monumental proportions, moving much of the industrialized world into 14th century caliphates."

That is exactly the world's point. The "global jihadist threat" is a weak one and not worthy of the panic Bush caused and war he started. There is nothing new about dealing about terrorists especially where you appear to be living

"History will bear out that Bush was right and those who have minimized the threat were naive and mistaken."

History has already pretty much decided that you are wrong but I am happy to wait and see

"Gotta go to work. Love to all. Don't be too angry, haters. Life goes on within you and without you."

Enjoy your day

Get off the trough
Hey Michael, when are you going to stop using the fact that you are President Reagan's son to advance your sorry career? Your 15 minutes expired years ago.

Hal #97
It's ironic that you call me out for "name calling" when you persistently label our president as "Bush the torturer."

The people you associate yourself with may believe the war is a blunder, but people I associate myself with believe that it is important to make our world a safer place for all who believe in freedom.

I respect your 20 years of service, and I hope that your treatment at Walter Reed cures you or rehabilitates you of your ills. I also respect your opinion. I simply disagree with you about Iraq, and I feel that we should all treat our leaders with respect, regardless of our personal views.

The interesting thing here
Anybody is credible as long as they spout whatever the listener wants to hear.

It's called preaching to the choir.

Apparently, McClellan held his finger up in the air and decided the prevailing winds would support a continuance of his moment of fame in the form of a lucrative book deal.

All of you who are jumping on the honor and integrity waggon might want to ask yourselves how the Congress has exhibited any honor and integrity by voting FOR the Iraq resolution and then doing their best to undermine it, and our Commander in Chief (and, by default, our military that you all seem to care so much about)?

The reasons behind the Iraq resolution have been explained ad infinitum on these threads, but it still doesn't make a dent on those of you who concentrate of WMD/Bush Lied memes.

The argument for the merits/non-merits of going into Iraq are LONG past. We're there. We need to finish the job.

All of you that express concern for the troops, and measure success by 'no troops died in Bosnia' need to answer this:

What was the moral/strategic reason for the Bosnia action? Why, if it had merit, did Clinton go in without any approval? How many civilians died?

What is the moral/strategic reason for Iraq?

If you all are going to be weepy and beat your breast over civilian deaths and human rights, where does that moral lens fall on Hussein?

From what I read, it seems stability in Iraq is more important than Iraqi civilians? Torture and Rape rooms etc, are okay for Hussein, but waterboarding is a 'crime against humanity?'

Your moral compass is out of whack.

Charles #98
You must get all your news from Keith Olberman.

Mrs. Paddy and impeachment
To Hal's reply, I'd add this:

Bush hasn't been impeached because timid Democratic leaders seem cowed by the way Americans turned on the Gingrich crowd after their relentless crusade to destroy Clinton.

Yet an important difference between the Clinton battle and current circumstances seems lost on congressional Democrats.

The Gingrich witch hunt backfired at least in part because fair-minded Americans saw lying about sex as a bogus reason to humiliate a president.

I believe the Democrats would be safe to go forward with impeachment because waging a war of aggression amounts to wrongdoing all but the Kool-Aid drinkers can understand and favor punishing.

Judas
yep, that's his name.

Stashy
Bush does not deserve respect. Vets hate him for cuttingmilitary pay, VA funding and privatizing Walter Reed Hospital thus causing it to deterriorate.

I don't buy into this whole idea of not criticizing our leaders in wartime. When one starts a war for political reasons, as McClellan rightfully said, they should be criticized. I remember people on the far right fringe (namely Sean Vannity) criticizing Clinton while we were in Bosnia. He then spewed the BS about how we should not criticize our leaders in wartime once Bush took office. It will be funny to hear these same blowhards rip on Obama when he takes office.

Stashy
So what part of #98 was incorrect?

Perry White
LOL....so the reason no impeachment is considered is because the Republicans ruined it for you? Ha. Ha. Ha.

Also, if waging a war of aggression is wrongdoing, will Congress impeach themselves???

LOL

Bravo, Mrs. Paddy !


Fine posts, and happy to have such a good writer onboard.

Yeah; maybe we also ought to ask the Hindsight is 20-20 Camp here; one simple question:

If we only went into Iraq for OIL,

something their cohorts kept insisting; and now that the petrol situation's become BAD news,

I want to KNOW-- When is Bush going to start stealing Iraq's oil? We could justify that, since after all; W's not honorable, or trustworthy. Besides; his term's up very soon. He can retire to Crawford TX, well-heeled with gazillions in petrodollars, and our Bush-haters here can all say-- "Just as we all told ya!"

(But we know they'll have to wait & see. Because all they have is infallible hindsight. )

.

Paddy
From reading your posts, it is obvious that you have never read the resolution or even a summary of it. The resolution called for another UN and congressional vote before going to war. Bush sidestepped it and went in without the vote - thus making it illegal. Another provision said that it needed to be proven that Saddam was an immediate threat - thus began the lies (yellowcake, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs)

Congress voted for the resolution based on lies put out by the Whitehouse.

John Kerry voted against the funding because there was no accounting for how the money would be spent and still no exit strategy. Remember the 9 BILLION in CASH lost by the CPA? Or all the contractor fraud? That is what he was trying to prevent.

When one gets their news form TH Columnists and in soundbite form from Fox, it is no wonder you are so misinformed.

Mrs. Paddy's smoking gun...
Log-rolling and demagoguery had the desired effect. To avoid being called unpatriotic in the aftermath of 9/11, Democrats fell in line with the president's wishes.

That makes Democrats cowards, true, but it also makes Bush a tyrant.

And even then, the Bush team had to concoct the "mushroom cloud" thing to leverage Democratic votes.

Judas
by definition means a treacherous person, traitor, betrayer by using this in the context of McClellan's perfidy, it in no way
calls Pres. Bush, Jesus. Judas has been used
to portray betrayal for centuries.

Charles #109
Where do you get your misinformation?

During the Clinton administration, the pay for an E-1 and O-1 increased 28%. During the Bush administration, the pay for an E-1 increased 44% and for an O-1, it increased 32%. Therefore, how can you accuse Bush of cutting military pay?

Military Monthly Pay Rates:
Jan 1992: E-1 $726; O-1 $1,504
Jan 2000: E-1 $930; O-1 $1,926
Jan 2008: E=1 $1,347; O-1 $2,555

Criticism is healthy. It's the name calling (torturer, liar, etc.) that is disrespectful.

McClellan
According to Ari Fliescher a man who should know a big share of what he wrote was his own opinions as he was not allowed in the meetings he talked about.I do not think Bush is stupid,but he is very,very naive and to damn trusting.

dreadnaught
Thanks! Please stop by my blog for the latest in political parodies. :-)

Great article Michael!
Poor Scott, he sold his soul for mere profits from a book. (A book financed and written by Soros and his group.)


Um.
Aren't lies by the Executive in such matters impeachable offenses?

This whole article is an ironic onomatopoeia...ding, ding, ding...It's about "loyalty" while at the same time it was written out of partisan loyalty.

This is not a partisan issue. I myself voted for Bush twice, which I regret now. It is the whole bunch that is rotten to the core, both Democrats and Republicans.

There is a growing movement out there among the middle class that has caught on to the fact that the media/military/government are all sleeping in the same bed. We are active, we are passionate, and our goal is to save America from the globalism that the Bush administration seems to champion of late.

Head firmly stuck in Texas sand...
texasps writes: "Poor Scott, he sold his soul for mere profits from a book. (A book financed and written by Soros and his group.)"

PW: What amazing insight. You've determined McClellan didn't even write the book with his name on it.

Interesting, too, that you equate telling the truth with selling your soul.

Delusion and denial are powerful forces.

Charles
I've read the resolution. You'll have to be specific on how it does not clearly give the President the authorization to take military action, because I don't see it.

This seems pretty clear to me

"Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"; "

While I was gone...
Is Charles trying to mislead or is he just plain wrong? Sorry, Charles, the resolution gave Bush the authority to use the armed forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate:

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

The whole thing is available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2. html

Thanks, Mrs. Paddy for your wit and grace.

Thanks, Hal for the civility. Call me old-fashioned, but I really do believe part of our duty as citizens of a free society is to engage each other in open and rational debate that is intellectually honest and respectful of other honest opinions.

Sorry, Hal, but the only people who ever credibly accused Bush of torture were enemy combatants and I think they may have been more biased than Adriana Huffington. Well, maybe not.

Love to all.


the president has never lied to us


Why would W be impeached fro lying; if he didn't lie?

He spoke the truth as he saw it. The day has come when his opponents sell the bogus claim Bus lied; since they all depend on 20-20 hindsight.
First they claimed he went in for OIL;

When do we steal some oil, for Pete's sake? Let's do it.

Then that he went in alone; --We went as a coalition of 18 countries.

They said Bush had led us into a quagmire, and 50,000 body-bags would come back from Iraq. They were all wrong.

Since it all started; not one terrorist attack has been made on our homeland. Not because al Qaeda wasn't trying; because Bush's work is succeeding to this day.

They claim he's behind the Plame Blame Game. But they never showed proof.

This is the hatred of those on our Left; who won't get over the fact Bush kicked Gore's @ss TWICE. And hatred of the pissant McClellan who wouldn't stand up like a man to the MSM; so he was canned. Now he plays whistle-blower. Only the Bush-haters believe him. Bush won't give them the time of day. So what else can they say but "He lied."



Stashy
"It's ironic that you call me out for "name calling" when you persistently label our president as "Bush the torturer."

That is a fact. Bush said he authorised waterboarding. There is no question that waterboarding is torture so that is a fact

"The people you associate yourself with may believe the war is a blunder, but people I associate myself with believe that it is important to make our world a safer place for all who believe in freedom."

The people I associate with do too BUT they believe, with some good reason, Bush has made us less safe

"...I simply disagree with you about Iraq, and I feel that we should all treat our leaders with respect, regardless of our personal views."

I did have your point of view even when Carter was President but Bush in my opinion does not deserve respect. What Scott said comes as no surprize to me.

pianogirl
There are a lot of us that are disturbed by our elected officials. If you are on the frontlines of a way to combat our career politicians, why don't you share that information with TH?

Also, funny I just found this...
From "The Officer's Guide", published by the Department of the Army (The Military Service Publishing Co., Harrisburg, PA) in 1943, p.129:

"If put to the pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. If you must villify, condemn and eternally disparage, why, resign your position and, when you are outside, damn to your heart's content. But, I pray you, so long as you are part of an institution, do not condemn it. Not that you will injure the institution-not that-but when you disparage the concern of which you are a part, you disparage yourself."

Interesting, Scott Mac is damning to his heart's content, but he is not disparaging Bush - the media coverage and the posters here prove that no one's mind has been changed about George W.- but he has certainly disparaged himself.

Bush is still smarter than all his critics.

Love to all.

wiseone....

"As a matter of fact I actually agree with that toomany Republicans have become weenie moderates instead of principled conservatives"

A "principled" conservative does not falsely profess a "humble" foreign policy to get elected, while "plotting" a misguided and counterproductive "regime" change.

A "principled" conservative president does not claim to be a "strict constructionist" and respect the constitution, and simultaneously lauch a preemptive war without a congressional declaration of war against a navyless, airforceless enemy who never attacked us.

A "principled" conservative does cut taxes while massively increasing both deficit spending, and launching all new entitlement spending.

And as to the broken campaign promises, I almost can't think of one he ever kept.

As to "authority". Only congress has the power to declare war. This is its Constitutional obligation. We have the law of the land, whether *you* like it or not, or whether the president will abide by it or its members of congress will abide by it. Fact is, you don't site a delaration of war....Congress punted its obligation and trampled the Constitution under foot, and Bush took the ball and ran with it.

There is nothing novel in McClellan's book....all presidents have their staffers whose job is to put the best spin on a bad situation. The fact that you and your ilk will continue to support this, is not evidence to me of a "principled" conservative.

BTW, to my knowledge, I think I have read at one time that pianogirl voted for Bush.

Logically, waterboarding is not torture
1)Torture does not yield credible, valuable information.

2)Khalid Sheikh Mohammed began to cooperate after two minutes of waterboarding, providing much cerdible, valuable information that helped to prevent subsequent terrorist attacks since 9/11. Therefore,

3) Waterboarding must not be torture.

Love to all.

wiseone....
If you want an Imperial Monarchy, solicit the constitution to give all authority to him.

Just remember, that knife will cut both ways if a leftist is in charge.

Salt
"Thanks, Hal for the civility. Call me old-fashioned, but I really do believe part of our duty as citizens of a free society is to engage each other in open and rational debate that is intellectually honest and respectful of other honest opinions."

I agree but I have not seen much of that.

"Sorry, Hal, but the only people who ever credibly accused Bush of torture were enemy combatants and I think they may have been more biased than Adriana Huffington. Well, maybe not."

The State Department did admit over 30 individuals died while undergoing stress interrogations. The Bush Regime had admitted the President was involved and authorised waterboarding of three individuals. The only folks denying that waterboarding is torture are the Bush folks

Bush in 2000 in a debate with Gore
GOV. BUSH: ....It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom.

So I don't -- I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation. And if we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us.



Bush said it.....

Bye, kids
Don't hurt each other while I'm gone and clean up your messes.

Love,

Dad

(Another) response to heresyarch
"A "principled" conservative does not falsely profess a "humble" foreign policy to get elected, while "plotting" a misguided and counterproductive "regime" change."

The "productive" or "counterproductive" results of the Iraq war will not be known for years, maybe decades.

"A "principled" conservative president does not claim to be a "strict constructionist" and respect the constitution, and simultaneously lauch a preemptive war without a congressional declaration of war against a navyless, airforceless enemy who never attacked us."

Bush claimed to be a "compassionate conservative", not a "strict constructionist". He merely promised to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court; a promise he kept.

"A "principled" conservative does cut taxes..."

More evidence that you are a clue less leftist. The tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the Treasury.

"...while massively increasing both deficit spending, and launching all new entitlement spending."

Aside from Medicare Prescription Benefits you can blame Democrats for ALL entitlement spending and deficits, new or existing.

"As to "authority". Only congress has the power to declare war..." blah blah blah

Read the September 12 Resolution moron. Then, when you're done with that, check out the vote specifically on Iraq a year later; 73% of Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq.

"There is nothing novel in McClellan's book..." blah blah blah

There is also very little truth in it. The 2,000 character limit and the apparent limit of your intelligence prevent me educating you on what a "principled conservative is."

Finally, one sure sign of a liberal is that he denies it.


Salt
"Logically, waterboarding is not torture..."

Loved that one LOL. Always and never are terms that seldom hold up. My whole thing is that for over 200 years in FAR more dire circumstances against FAR more deadly threats the country NEVER had a policy that condoned torture. Why now?

Speaking of voodoo economics...
And the potential of a reduction of taxes increasing revenues. It all depends which side of the Laffer curve one is one. I would agree we are on the downward slope.

But the increased revenue during the Bush "reign" is also due to the massive rate of interest reduction which spurred massive deficit spending both on the consumer level and the government level.

This economic activity is all being paid for with our "modest" (eh-hem) inflation. Oil yes is in higher demand, but no one cites for example that oil prices have quadrupled in the US, meanwhile in Europe they have only doubled.

So to give credit to "Bush tax cuts" as to the increase in government revenues, is somewhat disingenous. But "principled" conservatives will admit that the truth is somewhat grayer.

We only yet begun to pay the piper.

Hal Donahue
And as I stated before, many prison inmates would consider being locked in a five by eight cell for twenty hours a day torture. And I am not speaking of prison violence and sexual assault; just the basic practice of locking people away. And as I stated before, if one were able to choose between thirty minutes of water boarding terror and being locked in a cell for a decade, how many do you expect would choose the former?


Everyone
I have yet to have one of you folks explain how it was that Bush duped so many democrats into thinking Iraq had WMDs...before he was even elected president.

When democrats were speaking publically and regularly about Iraq and the danger it posed, prior to 2000, where were they getting their faulty and "Intentionally misleading" intelligence? Does the president have a time machine? When you folks can explain THAT, then you can tell me why you think Bush, "lied"

pianogirl
Thanks for the link. Other than the anti-Iraq war stance, I probably agree with 90% of what Ron Paul has to say.

I just don't see how pulling out of Iraq without it being stable is a good thing for our nation.

It is easy to demonstrate for 'peace'...nobody in their right mind wants war. I do think, however, that there are some things worth fighting for. I'm not here to debate the merits of going into Iraq. As I have said before, we are there, now we have to deal with that fact, not trying to re-write what is past.

If someone would spell out the scenario on how removing all of our troops immediately would impact our nation, stability in the ME, the world oil supply, the safety of our allies, and our credibility on the world stage, I'd like to hear it.

BOTH parties are suspect:
Excerpt from Ron Paul's "The Revolution: A Manifesto":

The Iraq war is sometimes portrayed as a conservative/liberal issue. It isn't. Supporters of war and empire come from both political parties and can be found among both liberals and conservatives. The "liberal media" supported the Iraq war with enthusiasm, and in their eagerness to parrot the official line abandoned whatever critical faculties they possessed. The American media were so derelict in their duty during the Iraq war that one watchdog group actually offered a $1,000 reward for any reporter who would ask the administration a challenging question about prewar intelligence. Hillary Clinton was a strong supporter of the war. Following the off-year election in 2006, congressional Democrats, for the most part, revealed themselves once again to be a sorry excuse for an opposition party, continuing to fund the war and refusing to take any bold action.

pianogirl
I'm not debating that there is plenty of blame to go around. You still haven't answered (nor has Ron Paul, as far as I know) What will happen? Risks/Benefits? if we pull out of Iraq now?

It's sort of like arguing that the lock on the barn door was too weak but the horse is already gone.

BOOK BUSINESS
Allow me to enter a bit of management and marketing theory into this. Publishing is a business not a charity, so even an unsavory type as George Soros is going to specify ROI. What exists is a tripe market; take the number of US Public Libraries and multiply by (conservative low estimate) two and factor the institutional price per copy of the book and the publisher has on the surface an aggregate dollar return for publishing and distributing book. Factor in the front end expenses associated with author, agent, editor and the dollar returns from library sales alone should produce an initial profit. Add MSM promotions - often free of charge - plus the guaranteed Lefto-Liberal buying public and there is an instant NYT Best Seller and B&N Border, etc darling they will happily display at door entrance until the two week flash in the pan craze is finished and book ends up in the dollar bin with the weight loss, diet, and cooking book failures.

As the Algoreasaurus proved there is a lot of money to be made in the Michael Mooron Market.

Judas got the silver - Honesty got the gold!

For Mrs. Paddy:
May I interest you in George Washington's and John Quincy Adams' views?

"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold and equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible....Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?" ---G. Washington

And John Quincy Adams spoke of America this way:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

pianogirl
Love the quotes...but you still haven't answered the question.

The pot is broken. How do we fix it?

Problem Solving
Many years I worked as a computer software problem solver. I always had to state to my clients:

"Are you paying me to tell you who caused the problem or you paying me to solve the problem?"

"There will be plenty of time to determine who caused the problem after we solve it and get everything running again."

I feel the same way in todays political process
everyone is focused on who/what/when/where instead of 'What is the best solution to the war with the least collateral damage and expense?'

Liberals always criticize process - conservatives always criticicize unwillingness of Liberals to stand up for anything except their failed Liberal social programs.

Consideration for our troops and the Iraqi people are but simple pawns in the battle of egos.

When is America going to focus on the problem?

History will record the mistakes of both sides until then why not work together for a solution?

Retired Geek
You, sir are a breath of fresh air. Thanks for your posts. I'm out a here! Cheers!

For Mrs. Paddy:
Well, at first I thought I would copy another quote from "The Revolution" for you, but I think I'll just go with a more personal response.

It seems that if we were to withdraw the troops today, which should be easily done with a new administration, the immediate effect would be like taking the pressure off the pressure cooker. The terrorists hate us for our foreign policy. The reason they hate us in the Middle East is because we have literally invaded their land by setting up military bases, bombing their people, setting up police states in their countries, and imposing sanctions on them. These countries have been engaging in what the CIA calls "blowback." When you remove the stinger of the bee, the pain is alleviated. It seems that to continue as we are, the pain will continue and fester, and the pressure will remain on the cooker.

I think that because of this pressure, we as Americans are LESS safe from a future attack rather than more safe, which is the common reasoning.

Another consequence of the war is our erosion of civil liberties. Because of our interference in the Middle East, we have been subject to the Patriot Act and many Executive Orders that have given the people less liberty, while giving the Executive more power. These will likely never be reversed, the nature of big government being what it is.

Almost too obvious to mention are the lives and injuries (both mental and physical) spared, and the untold BILLIONS of dollars saved. Our dollar would be spared the debasement it has been undergoing because of efforts to pay for the war, and would probably recover somewhat from just the announcement of withdrawal from Iraq. Regardless, our country is on the verge of bankruptcy and the war does not help matters.

TWO things
One, check out the ANTI LIBERAL ZONE (click on my name) for the NEW video of a "priest" calling on whitey to give up their 401K's to repay blacks for slavery. (I KNEW I shouldn't of sold my plantation!) Naturally, he's playing front row in Team Mugabe II's house, the house of "rev" Wrongwright.

Two, check out the ALZ for a RIP on racist libs and recent racism from their leaders.

Lastly, ANYONE getting a copy of Bob Dole's THRASHING letter on weasel Scotty McClellan, shoot it to me at:

libsmustdie@gmail.com

thanks.

Dreadnaught
There's a good reason they have such good hindsight! They have their head shoved so far up their arse the eyeballs are the only protruding part.

To who ever it was that said that honor and courage were neocon- speak. the only people that do not understand honor and courage are those who have neither and that describes the like of DrunKahoo and Charles. Oh, don't forget wobbie!

The Gene Pool & Clan McClellan
The betrayal gene is dominant in Clan McClellan. Little Scotty's Mama is one nasty grandma, and she's left a few pieces of cutlery between shoulder blades in her time. Looks like she taught her son well.

At any rate, the allegations are transparently false based upon Little Scotty's actions -- or more precisely, lack of action -- at the time. He freely admits he never challenged the administration on the things that so bother him now. It should also be noted he did not become Press Sec until July 2003 -- long after the Iraq issue had been voted on in October 2002, and after the March 2003 invasion.

This is just another case of Spontaneous BDS brought on by a big royalty check.

Thirty pieces of silver?
That would make George Bush Jesus in your analogy. Please.





bob the apoligist
"Reply # 140
Date: May 29, 2008 - 4:42 PM EST Hal Donahue
And as I stated before, many prison inmates would consider being locked in a five by eight cell for twenty hours a day torture... just the basic practice of locking people away."

It is not about what they consider it is about what we society consider and plain and simple waterboarding is torture the US has said so and most of the civilized world has said so. Make light of it all you like - I find it typical that those claiming the moral highground often commit the worst crimes.

"And as I stated before, if one were able to choose between thirty minutes of water boarding terror and being locked in a cell for a decade, how many do you expect would choose the former? "

If they watched it done once? none.

The UN resolution thing is too stupid.
Michael Reagan the 2nd worst guy on radio next to Glenn Beck forgot about WMD,mushroom clouds,9-11 links as something that would make a good case to go to war ( if they were true) A broken UN resolution (which the right hates)was probably way down the list of lies these guys cooked up to fool the American people.

Everyone loves Sophie
hey how goes it?

CODE PINK NUDE BEACH
TO: Everyone loves Sophie

AGAIN: Sans usage of marijuana and other hallucinates:

Name one - just (1) - redeemable quality associated with Barack O'BoomBox Obama?

Your last response was "Iraq" which bordered on shear stupidity.

When you join your naked bodies from Code Pink at the nude beach and hitchhike back to you crash pad safely it may be appropriate to ask how was it there were no roadside bombs on the way?

Do you truly believe that Barack O'BoyToy will protect you?

**** WHAT ARE YOU PRETENDING NOT TO KNOW? ^^^^
***** DON'T BOGART THE JOUNT! *****


wiseone writes
"Bush claimed to be a "compassionate conservative", not a "strict constructionist"."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071115-14 .html

Bush writes:
"The President's oath of office commits him to do his best to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." I take these words seriously.

***I believe these words mean what they say.***

And I ask my nominees to the federal bench to take seriously their own oath to uphold the Constitution -- and that is because I strongly believe our freedom depends on the willingness of judges to be bound by the Constitution and the law."

Yeah, maybe he explicitly claimed to be a strict constructionist, but apologists for Bush I am sure, will dig under any rock to defend the Imperial Monarchy. He did claim that he took the constitution seriously and expected his judges he appointed to do the same.

Read into it however you wish....I am sure you will.

eastlake joe
"...To who ever it was that said that honor and courage were neocon- speak. the only people that do not understand honor and courage are those who have neither and that describes the like of DrunKahoo and Charles. Oh, don't forget wobbie! "

Little, little Joe is all you are reduced to now is insulting those who served honorably? Is all you can do is whine? If yes, then you are indeed a sad and weak creature

Everyone loves Sophie
"Reply # 161
Date: May 29, 2008 - 7:59 PM EST Subject: More on hindsight....
General Shinseki (sp) and General Batiste did not have hindsight. They had foresight. Too bad the administration blew them off,huh? "

And a lot of other Generals the only reason Bush the torturer listened to Patreaus is that he had no choice. He fired or forced out in disgust good generals like you mentioned. The 06 elections meant he had to change course so...
too bad so many good men and woman had to die or have their careers ruined at his altar of ego. What was the book he was reading before the invasion? Someone who said the first thing for a great leader has to realise is that generals never want to go to war becauise it breaks their "toys"? As one of those toys, I understand why to bad the Bush Regime couldn't

To all of you
who KNOW more about what to do about everything, please tell us what is going to happen if Mcain, Clinton or Obama is elected. What will happen? I have read your insider personal knowledge about the Bush's, about Saddam, about Mclellan...etc. And let us know where you got this knowledge.

Pianogirl
Thanks for your response. It sounds so rosy.

We go home and everybody is happy....Why do I believe that we go home and there is a repeat of the bloodbath that followed Gulf War I, and our withdrawal from Viet Nam?

Of course, perhaps you don't see those deaths as a consequence of our withdrawal, or that they are unimportant because they are not Americans....I don't know. Nobody seemed to care about the killing fields in Cambodia.

What strategic value do you think is manifest in the ME for our nation? Is stability there in our national interest or not?

How would Ron Paul make us energy independent, and on what time-line?

What is Ron Paul's answer if the 'balloon' goes up in the ME?

Sophie
Why do you pose ridicuous arguments? Who are you wanting to hold responsible?

You can't have it both ways in Iraq. We either made things worse, and are therefore responsible to mend it before we leave, or the Iraqis are totally responsible for everything, and we can leave with impunity.

Or don't you REALLY care what happens to people outside of the US? Are they all just a bunch of ragheads to you? Only Americans count, huh?

Sorry folks
I gotta go. I'll check back later.

WTC COMMUTERS
TO:
Hal donpohue

Your Words: "Bush the torturer"

My words: A large number of commuters from PA were in the WTC, apparently you were not one of them!

Last time for heresyarch
Nothing in your post indicates that Bush claimed to be a strict constructionist. Instead, your post shows that Bush believed that philosophical options such as that are best reserved for judges, not Presidents.

Any 5th grader can tell you, from the citations in your own post, that the words Bush takes seriously those pertaining to his oath of office; to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The same 5th grader can tell you that the following paragraph:

"And I ask my nominees to the federal bench to take seriously their own oath to uphold the Constitution -- and that is because I strongly believe our freedom depends on the willingness of judges to be bound by the Constitution and the law."

doesn't even demand his nominees to be "strict constructionists", let alone make Bush one.

But then you're not as smart as a fifth grader, are you?

It may surprise you to learn that Bush nominated many moderate and liberal judges to the lower courts. You wouldn't have heard about these in the MSM because the Senate Democrats didn't have a hissy fit over any of them.

Finally, all of your "strict consrtuctionist arguments have nothing to do with an "Imperial Presidency" or an illegal war. Congress voted to authorize the war. Live with it.

If you want to examine a President actually sending troops into harms way without even consulting Congress (or NATO, or the UN), then why don't you hold Clinton to the same standard for his invasions of Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia?

Oh that's right. Clinton's a Democrat so he can do whatever he wants.

You're so hypocritical there's no point in continuing. Like I said in my last post, you can't be educated.

FORK U
TO:
Hal Donahue
Location: PA

The State of Pa is home to some wonderful educatiin with Penn, Drexel, St. Francis, PSU; but do respond: "That morsel at the end of your fork - how did it get there?"

For Mrs. Paddy:
Ron Paul on Oil and Energy:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm


I don't understand what you mean about the "balloon" in the ME? Are you talking about a nuclear bomb?

SPIEGEL IM SPIEGEL
"Your Words: "Bush the torturer"

My words: A large number of commuters from PA were in the WTC, apparently you were not one of them! "

NO, but I new lots of them and my daughter-in-law is NYFD. What is your point? My point is that for 200+ years this country NEVER said torture was "OK" now it is policy. This has nothing to do with 9/11 this has to do with a weak and frightened Regime.

I find it horrifying that Osama walks and prospers....

SPIEGEL IM SPIEGEL
"...The State of Pa is home to some wonderful educatiin with Penn, Drexel, St. Francis, PSU; but do respond: "That morsel at the end of your fork - how did it get there?"

LOL I know exactly how it got here LOL transportantion experioence lots as well as international experience what is your point

For Mrs. Paddy:
On the energy issue, I think you will see that Ron Paul once again displays his prescience in this article dated 2006: What Congress Can Do About Rising Gas Prices

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=536

McClellan's Hypocricy
I wonder how many visits from Soros'gang it took to make Scott a turncoat? Also,how much he was offered for his permission to sign off on a book I doubt seriously if he even saw until it was finished.

Oh,he probably gave them some notes about some personal matters,so it would seem like he had a hand in writing it.I have heard these same accusations from the left for years.

The book was written by a 'Nation' magazine person and published by Soros' company.Now is that not suspect? Doesn't it seem just a little suspicious?

They have ruined McClellan's reputation,He will always be known as a disloyal ex-employee who is a back-stabber.When the left needs him no more,they will throw him under the bus,just like they have Hillary and Bill.

When the truth comes out about how and why this book was put out there just before the election,some of you will see I am right.Some still won't accept it,because you want the worst for this administration.

This is my opinion and I may be wrong.We will see.I have heard no real revelations in this book,just inuendos and his opinions.He will get his 15 minutes of fame,then fade into nothingness.

Robert
Be well. The ravenous Kool aid drinkers are in panic yet another of their ilk bolted.

I am leaving shortly but who do you see as your guys VP?

Last link for Mrs. Paddy:
This is a very interesting and recent interview with a Muslim newspaper that I think you will find answers all of your foreign policy questions.

http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2743/

"Robert" writes: "advise/advice'

ANY officer would know the difference between "advise" and "advice" just as they'd know the difference between "later" and "latter."

Need help, wobbie? I'd be more than happy to help...

If you do, you'd best ask right away before your posts are pulled again... all of them under the other alias you use.


halD: "The ravenous Kool aid drinkers."


That would be YOU!


Robert
Having been on the wrong side of Israeli firepower twice I have zero time for Leiberman. I am honestly not at all sure where his interests lie. I didn't like him with Gore I don't like him now

Anne
"...Reply # 183
Date: May 29, 2008 - 11:08 PM EST Subject: halD: "The ravenous Kool aid drinkers."


That would be YOU!"

Not playing tonght nasty anne enjoy and be well. Robert did Anne once have relavance?

Nite folks be well

halD: Weren't you a pencil pusher??
Awe, doofus, you just don't like Lieberman because he backed Pres. Bush on the WOT...

Tsk, tsk, tsk.......


AMERICAN DUE PROCESS
SIR: You bandy about the term “torture” as if my fellows are members of the Gestapo which is a categorical lie and insult. If you are hung up on “waterboarding” GROW UP, Waterboarding is not torture, it is a suspended state of helplessness with the sensation of drowning. There are no twisting or breaking of bones nor bleeding or death so to accuse Americans without due process just plain insults. The MSM editors are subjugated to power source PowerCrats like George Soros. To follow further their train of thinking is advancing ungrounded propaganda. This is America and if a case is to be justified there are ample courts with a bounty of ACLU advocates eager to take such accusations for review. To further accuse and judge American fellows in the military or law enforcement without due process is unconscionable.

If you are certain about that word "torture" gather a gaggle of like minded and commission the ACLU and see how far it gets you; but as you quibble with "waterboarding" are you safe? For me the dichotomy between "waterboarding" and safety, I choose safety!

Kind of felt sorry for Scotty Boy
I was channel surfing during commercials- That's how I really stay Fair and Balanced- I happened to catch Scott talking to Keith Obermoron on MSNBC. It was truly pitiful- Scott was always looking down as he talked to K.O.-- It was almost like he was being forced to say those things. I really felt sorry for him. It's almost like he is entrapped in a situation. When you watch his interviews, he is not very convincing and rarely makes eye contact with the host. Maybe it's just a guilty conscience. The left is making him out of a hero for being an insider Whistle Blower- I don't recall them making a Heroin out of the woman who tapped Monica Lewinsky--Oh No she was a villian--Double Standard

Robert, you only wish I had no

"relavence.."

Oh, and tell your loser buddy, halD, that "relavance" is correctly spelled "relevance."

Just trying to be helpful.. You know, "later/latter" and "advice/advise." :-)

Oh, and btw, I do apologize for thinking that you actually violated the UCMJ? Now that we KNOW for SURE that you are NOT an officer, violating the UCMJ is not an issue.

Glad we got THAT settled.


But wobbie, I was just trying to

apologize for thinking that you actually violated the UCMJ? :-)

It was really silly how anyone could possibly think that you were violating the UCMJ... LOL

Wobbie, believe me, you have NO CLUE who I AM, and WHAT I KNOW and what agency I'm affiliated with. But if you did...

Think about it......

Drunkahoo
"is all you are down to is insulting those who served honorably"? No Drunkahoo only the ones who started it with me. The HONERABLE soldier was the one who gave me the right to answer shot for shot. Of course you wouldn't know what I meant by that! Drugstore cowboys like you never do.

patpat
I think he is in too deep.If he had help writing his book as I believe,then he would be uncomfortable promoting it.

He has no choice,probably.He will have to flog it so Soros can get his money back to further his fight for socialism in this country.

He must be a bitter person to have done this.He never seemed to be vindictive,but money calls.

If not for the blue dress,Monica would be just another intern with knee pads.

P.s.
Walter reed does have a mental ward don't they?

Wobbie
You must be under the don't ask/don't tell. I noticed your post about Leiberman having an excellent "Package". I guess Doc and GunnyG and the others weren't kidding!!!

Rowly: McClellen sold his soul.....

to the devil...

And when all is said and done, "Sorass" will be the least of his worries.

Anne
Agreed.Do you think maybe wobbie needs a shower,too? I kept hoping his junk would be erased and banned again.No such luck.

COMMENSEMENT SPEECH
I spend my day writing and listening to Classical FM so I rarely watch television; but, yesterday, as the MSM was agaggle with the McClellen episode to oblivion our President gave the commensement speech to the graduating cadets at the Air Forse Academy.

Again a man subject to false accusation surmounts the hostility with words of conscience and fortitude.

***** THIS MAN WILL BE MISSED! ******

SPIEGEL IM SPIEGEL
I love classical...I heard most of the speech.Couldn't help but compare it to Obama's Memorial Day speech where he saw dead people in the audience.

scott.....what happened?! Heresyarch....
I suspect that Scott dosn't know 1/2 of what he tries to convey!?
Heresyarch- I understand your frustrations...
but Mr. Barr is a member of the ACLU...and doesn't talk strong against Illegal Immigration
which is very touchy issue! I pass on Mr. Barr!
As for LOYALITY...be careful that we don't get
carried away with this word...because the Old
communist Russia put party above all!
elvis

Rowly: wobbie needs MORE than a shower..

With all his bullying, etc., he has no idea who I really am, and what I do KNOW about him... And he's not as smart as he thinks he is; I've given him enough clues that he should know enough to.... whatever.

And, he should also be wondering just why ALL of his posts are "magically" disappearing...


Anne
He is an imposter.No one could do as many things as he says he does.His posts are so jumbled,they don't make sense.No real officer would mess up like that.

Both Frick and Frack try to be everyones moral compass.They talk down to everyone unless they are far left,like they both are.I wish all their posts were deleted.I don't mind debating a fair person.Neither of them are.

It is 1:00 A.M.here,I have to hit the sack.Take care.....

pianogirl
Thanks for the links. I've been reading them.

Yes, 'balloon' refers to nuclear war in the ME...Just wondered where RP fell out on that. He says he considered Israel an ally, so am I to assume that an attack on an ally would be a call to arms for us? Just wondering.

I have always believed that we need to have military strength to defend ourselves. I'm not convinced that RP shares that view, but I am willing to consider his point of view.

Thanks for your courtesy.

Time for bed
night all.

McClellan was forced out, right?
So, within the freedom the US Constituion provides/demands is he not really doing the right think in actually revealing the why he was forced out?

Conversely the ones that left this same job, not forced out, don't they speak out? I think McClellan is doing the patriotic thing! Demanding from him to keep quiet is Soviet Style, or so it smells like to me?

In the Soviet System he would not have been force out, right? He would have gotten a bullet through his head, right?

Yes, lets make sure that Americans are never afraid to speak out. These words are ever more valid: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else". By Theodore Roosevelt

Hal Donahue
So if society says it is torture then it is? That would seem to suggest that nobody is allowed to have a differing opinion. How convenient. Sorry Hal, but I do not base my moral positions on what everyone else is saying.

Then you stated that not a single person would choose water boarding over 20 years in prison if they just watched it done once. Not one you said. That statement arrogantly presumptious in its absolutism. How would you know. Have YOU watched waterboarding take place? No? Neither have I. But considering there have been convicts who would rather be executed than spend their lives in prison, it is not a stretch to assume some would take water boarding over two or three decades in a cell.

FEELING SECURE
*****WHAT ARE YOU PRETENDING NOT TO KNOW *****

ASK YOURSELF:
Does Barack Hussain Obama make you feel safe, protected, secure?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.