Ex-Bush Spokesman: Propaganda Used to Push War

[Pressing-On]

Bob Dole Calls Scott McClellan a 'Miserable Creature'

Get 'em Bob!!!!

In the e-mail, Dole basically describes the former White House press secretary as a traitor looking to cash in on the "liberal" media's distaste for President Bush.

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," the five-term Kansas senator wrote to McClellan. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

He continues: "When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years."

I have no intention of reading your "exposé" because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job. That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You're a hot ticket now but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?

BOB DOLE

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,360723,00.html

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Bob Dole Calls Scott McClellan a 'Miserable Creature'

Get 'em Bob!!!!

Notice Bob Dole doesn't go on record against the facts around the accusations in McClellan's book...he attacks McClellan personally.

Here's the deal folks...McClellan admits that he was caught up in the idealism of the Administrations policies, believing they were in our best interests even if there were issues with some of the data given to the American people. But as time passed and he discovered more details about Rove and Libby, about how the strategy of the Administration was proving to be a blunder costly in lives, money, and American respect abroad he began looking into things himself and found that he was wrong and the Administration should face it's failed policies and it's shameful propaganda campaign to rally the American people around a war of choice and not necessity.

I'm warning all you Bush loyalists...when this Administration is out of power we're going to have all kinds of stuff come to light. I believe it will show how corrupt this Administration has been and how much they lied to us. I love all my conservative brethren here...I think it would be wise to back up from defending this Administration and take a "could be right" position and wait it all out to see if we've been lied to. Because if y'all ideologically defend these guys and they're proven to be as corrupt as the day is long it's going to make your judgment look questionable and could conceivably make you look like you're of like spirit. I think better of you guys, even if we disagree on some political issues. Don't let this Administration taint you.

I know a guy who supported Clinton...and when he heard about how Clinton was accused of having an affair he said, "Awww man." His buddies asked, "So do you think it's true?" He said, "Bro, this is Clinton, I know it's true." Though he supported Clinton, he was willing to accept and tell the truth about the man. We need men with that much integrity about the Bush Administration. We need conservatives who will tell the truth about there own. Conservatives who value their loyalty to the American people more than their loyalty to a President or a party. McClellan just might be that kind of conservative.

God bless.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Here ya go, Chris!

Condoleezza Rice Defends Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWmqc9Bakfk

Condi said nothing to address McClellan's statements. She illustrates that the one thing she's certain of is that it wasn't wrong to liberate the Iraqi people. Then she goes on to claim that the entire world thought Saddam had WMDs. But there are problems with this. Yes, the world suspected Saddam of having anthrax and poison gasses...but the Administration used terms like "mushroom cloud", "drones", "nuclear weapons", etc. McClellan never claims the world didn't suspect Iraq of having WMD's...he accuses the Administration of exaggerating and fabricating the level of danger to sell the war to the American people...and that appears to be what they have done. When the Administration started making statements about nuclear material and nuclear weapons in Iraq, CIA officials warned that evidence was lacking. The IAEA warned that that Iraq wasn't capable of producing nuclear weapons. Powell even showed satalite images of what was believed to be a weapons lab that proved false. The issue is that the Bush Administration exaggerated the dangers about Iraq with implying that they might have nuclear weapons or be on the brink of developing them to terrify us into supporting the war.

Now McClellan's book does say some things that I thought was interesting that may show that he has some inside knowledge and is telling the truth. You see the Democrats claimed Bush did this to liberate oil from Saddam's control and place it under a probusiness American puppet for the benefit of American oil companies. McClellan doesn't claim that. He claims that the Bush Administration believed that they could revolutionize the Middle East by advancing democracy in Iraq. McClellan calls this an idealistic vision that proved to be a strategic blunder. Notice...McClellan doesn't repeat the Democratic mantra of Bush being greedy and launching a war for oil....McClellan claims the Administration had a false idealism that lead them to sincerely think that by establishing democracy in Iraq they could revolutionize the Middle East. In other words McClellan claims would imply that the Bush Administration felt it would be in the world's best interests to establish democracy in Iraq...but couldn't get support for an invasion based on anthrax or nerve gas...so they trumped up the charges to include presence or imminent development of nuclear WMD's.

McClellan's accusations if true would prove one thing...the war wasn't about oil...it was about an idealistic vision of changing the Middle East by invading a country and establishing democracy. But the issue is, not only was this vision too idealistic, it was a strategic blunder that was sold to the people by presenting distortions, deceptions, and exaggerations of danger to the American people.

If McClellan was just another Democratic hack...he wouldn't let the Administration off the hook about invading for oil so easily.

I think McClellan's telling the truth. We were lied to because the Bush Administration thought a war in Iraq would be in the best interests of the Middle East and the world abroad...so they lied to us to get the war they wanted. The only problem is...things haven't turned out the way they expected them to turn out. So now we got a mess based on lies.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Condi said nothing to address McClellan's statements. She illustrates that the one thing she's certain of is that it wasn't wrong to liberate the Iraqi people. Then she goes on to claim that the entire world thought Saddam had WMDs. But there are problems with this. Yes, the world suspected Saddam of having anthrax and poison gasses...but the Administration used terms like "mushroom cloud", "drones", "nuclear weapons", etc. McClellan never claims the world didn't suspect Iraq of having WMD's...he accuses the Administration of exaggerating and fabricating the level of danger to sell the war to the American people...and that appears to be what they have done. When the Administration started making statements about nuclear material and nuclear weapons in Iraq, CIA officials warned that evidence was lacking. The IAEA warned that that Iraq wasn't capable of producing nuclear weapons. Powell even showed satalite images of what was believed to be a weapons lab that proved false. The issue is that the Bush Administration exaggerated the dangers about Iraq with implying that they might have nuclear weapons or be on the brink of developing them to terrify us into supporting the war.

Now McClellan's book does say some things that I thought was interesting that may show that he has some inside knowledge and is telling the truth. You see the Democrats claimed Bush did this to liberate oil from Saddam's control and place it under a probusiness American puppet for the benefit of American oil companies. McClellan doesn't claim that. He claims that the Bush Administration believed that they could revolutionize the Middle East by advancing democracy in Iraq. McClellan calls this an idealistic vision that proved to be a strategic blunder. Notice...McClellan doesn't repeat the Democratic mantra of Bush being greedy and launching a war for oil....McClellan claims the Administration had a false idealism that lead them to sincerely think that by establishing democracy in Iraq they could revolutionize the Middle East. In other words McClellan claims would imply that the Bush Administration felt it would be in the world's best interests to establish democracy in Iraq...but couldn't get support for an invasion based on anthrax or nerve gas...so they trumped up the charges to include presence or imminent development of nuclear WMD's.

McClellan's accusations if true would prove one thing...the war wasn't about oil...it was about an idealistic vision of changing the Middle East by invading a country and establishing democracy. But the issue is, not only was this vision too idealistic, it was a strategic blunder that was sold to the people by presenting distortions, deceptions, and exaggerations of danger to the American people.

If McClellan was just another Democratic hack...he wouldn't let the Administration off the hook about invading for oil so easily.

I think McClellan's telling the truth. We were lied to because the Bush Administration thought a war in Iraq would be in the best interests of the Middle East and the world abroad...so they lied to us to get the war they wanted. The only problem is...things haven't turned out the way they expected them to turn out. So now we got a mess based on lies.

Saddam Hussein proved he had weapons of mass destruction when he gassed thousands of his own people. Anyone who would be willing to use those types of weapons on his own people would not hesitate to use them on others. He admitted before his death that he tried to make it look to the rest of the world that he was up to no good in developing other ways of using WMDs, even though he wasn't. Hussein played a game with the rest of the world and his cost him his life.

Originally Posted by Rico

Saddam Hussein proved he had weapons of mass destruction when he gassed thousands of his own people. Anyone who would be willing to use those types of weapons on his own people would not hesitate to use them on others. He admitted before his death that he tried to make it look to the rest of the world that he was up to no good in developing other ways of using WMDs, even though he wasn't. Hussein played a game with the rest of the world and his cost him his life.

Bro...most nations in the world have the ability to gas a significant number of people...that's no reason to lie to justify an invasion. Hey...we've got that ability many times over...what if Russia felt a preemptive attack on the US to protect her interests were justified? We can't go around invading every country that has gas or uses it...we'd have war without end and it would be the death of us. But here's the deal...a Middle Eastern nation with nukes...now that justifies military action to protect Israel and our economic interests in the region, like oil. That's why Bush led us to believe they already had nukes or were on the verge of having them in a couple months.

Strong sanctions were already causing Saddam's regime to teeter on the verge of collapse. The IAEA, the UN, and the CIA warned that they believed Saddam was bluffing in his rhetoric... seeing that his regime was a sinking ship. If you can remember that's why they were demanding more inspections to verify the charges Bush was making. It all wasn't adding up. The Administration made the case that more inspections weren't needed because Saddam wasn't complying anyway and pushed for the war. Hate to say it...but if the inspectors got in again...they may have proven the Administration's accusations regarding nuclear capability and projects to be exaggerated.

Here's what gets my goat...if McClellan is right...the IAEA and the United Nations was telling us more truth about Iraq than the Bush Administration.

[chosenbyone]

Originally Posted by Rico

Saddam Hussein proved he had weapons of mass destruction when he gassed thousands of his own people. Anyone who would be willing to use those types of weapons on his own people would not hesitate to use them on others. He admitted before his death that he tried to make it look to the rest of the world that he was up to no good in developing other ways of using WMDs, even though he wasn't. Hussein played a game with the rest of the world and his cost him his life.

The sad reality was that the US sold Saddam the very gas he used on his own people.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Duh.

Duh is right....ALL presidencies do this. But that does not mean the opposite of what they said is the truth. Katrina fault does not lie with Bush as much as it does with Nagin and the governer

Rico,

Just because there's no proof right now doesn't mean things will not be revealed after the Administration is out. After the Bush Administration is out many things will be reviewed, disclosed, declassified, and people from the Pentagon, CIA, and even a few very high officials who served the British government could come forward. Don't get all sure of anything yet, don't let your Bush loyalty get you into a place where Bush makes you look bad. Just give it time. We'll revisit this again once Bush is out of office and things start coming to light.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Rico,

Just because there's no proof right now doesn't mean things will not be revealed after the Administration is out. After the Bush Administration is out many things will be reviewed, disclosed, declassified, and people from the Pentagon, CIA, and even a few very high officials who served the British government could come forward. Don't get all sure of anything yet, don't let your Bush loyalty get you into a place where Bush makes you look bad. Just give it time. We'll revisit this again once Bush is out of office and things start coming to light.

It has nothing to do with Bush loyalty, GH. It does, however, have everything to do with common sense. The things I've said concerning the McClellan fella would be true regardless of who was in office. If any administration were to take this country to war based on lies and intentional deception of the American people, those in power from the opposing party would jump at the chance to expose that administration's lies.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Rico

It has nothing to do with Bush loyalty, GH. It does, however, have everything to do with common sense. The things I've said concerning the McClellan fella would be true regardless of who was in office. If any administration were to take this country to war based on lies and intentional deception of the American people, those in power from the opposing part would jump at the chance to expose that administration's lies.

One thing McClellan is touting is that Bush should have stood by his word on firing anyone involved in the Plame leak would be fired from the Administration.

What he doesn't get right is that Bush said that anyone that was convicted of a crime would be fired and Rove was never charged with that crime.