bloc's tags:

In Iraq, McClellan added, Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness," something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.

The president's real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote.

"Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path — not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," he wrote of the effort to convince the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an effort he said used "innuendo and implication" and "intentional ignoring of intelligence to the contrary."

source


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • ALIENated said on May 29, 2008....
    
    Another disgruntled, sour grapes weasel tells the left what it wants to hear.
    And the left naively laps it up like a kitten drinking fresh milk. Drink kitten,
    drink. Ignore the sour taste.
    
    
  • bloc said on May 29, 2008....
    i'd be disgruntled if I were lied to be Rove and Libby. Being disgruntled doesn't make ones statements untrue!
  • ALIENated said on May 29, 2008....
    
    I obviously have not read the book, but why is McClellan suddenly so 
    believeable? What he is saying is just his opinion of what was going on.
    I think anyone would admit that Bush is no saint (even if he is miles
    closer to sainthood than Bill Clinton or Jimmy Farter), but McClellan
    is going to sell a lot more books by saying what liberals want to hear
    about the decision making process. How many books do you think I
    would sell if my book painted a patriotic, rosy picture of the Bush
    White House? Plus, I have been hearing today that McClellan has 
    questionable ties considering who published his book -- a known
    Bush-hater.
    
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
  • bloc said on May 30, 2008....
    the typical neocon tactic. Attack the person and ignore the issues.
  • ALIENated said on May 30, 2008....
    
    Seems to me that is what McClellan is doing with the help of others that
    love to attack the President. I assume you have read his book and his
    proof is in order. Every time I have talked to the president, I came away
    with just the opposite opinion. That he did not want to start the war,
    but terrorists had to be stopped.
    
    As your idol once said "it depends on what your definition of is
    is".
    
    
  • bloc said on May 31, 2008....
    you mean the terrorists that weren't in Iraq. Yes they needed to be stopped, which is why invading Iraq was so stupid.
  • ALIENated said on May 31, 2008....
    
    Yes, there were no terrorists in Iraq. I suppose our people have just been
    killing each other. You should join the Air Force or Navy (you would
    never make it in the Marines). It might wake you up to the realities of the
    world.
    
    
  • bloc said on Jun 01, 2008....
    the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Most of the people we're fighting in Iraq are not terrorists (I don't think you know the definition of that word) and the ones that are weren't there before we invaded. 


  • ALIENated said on Jun 01, 2008....
    
    True about the 9/11 terrorists, but the rest sounds like something you
    heard on CNN. So who do you think we are fighting in Iraq ... little green
    men? I guess a terrorist sympathizer, such as yourself, would classify
    Al Quida, Hamas, and Hezbollah as freedom fighters, whereas most of
    us classify them as terrorists. I know, on most of the propadanda TV
    shows (created by wacko liberal extremists) everyone the military kills
    turns out to be an innocent Iraqui citizen. You might want to talk to 
    someone who has been over there. I shudder to think what will happen
    if someone who thinks as you do (like Borax Oblahma) becomes 
    President. I guess he would fit better with the end times we are now
    in. Of course, McCain might be more likely to take care of business
    with Iran, which could trigger Armageddon. Either way, it is coming,
    and guys like you will not know what hit them, and will not support 
    what has to be done. I think WMD was just an excuse for going into
    Iraq, as well, but the difference is, I do not care. That rat's nest
    needed to be cleaned out before its leader was responsible for
    something like 9/11. I figure guys like you will not wake up until 
    another attack on the scale of 9/11 happens. All I can say is, how
    guickly we forget. I do not have liberal amnesia, so I remember why
    we went into Iraq and why everyone was for it except a few liberal
    wackos in congress like Oblahma. And I know that all the bad press
    on Bush is mainly politics, most of it without substance. Most of the
    things he has done does not compare to things other presidents have
    done, presidents who are highly regarded ... because they were
    Democrats, and for no other reason. Once the politics are out of the
    way, Bush will not be remember as he is thought of now. Especially
    in light of what is ahead. Especially if Borax is somehow elected 
    comrad in chief.
    
    
  • stopmediabias said on Jun 14, 2008....
    Alien-don't waste your time, I find it funny how the left claims the Bush Administration is filled with a bunch of liars right up until one of them writes a book that is critical, then suddenly their word is scripture.
     
    Osama the infidel could not stand Saddam and at one time looked at him as an enemy, but they had something in common they both hated America.  There are documented links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, this doesn't mean there was a working relationship.  To suggest that if Saddam was in a hurry to conceal or get rid of WMD's would not have sold them to Al Qaeda is dangerous and naive. 
     
    Once again, the true threat was Saddam's giving terrorist organizations WMD's.  We probably could have let Saddam fester for many more years, but after 9/11 we couldn't take that chance anymore. 
  • bloc said on Jun 14, 2008....
    Saddam had on WMD that were a threat to us. This is the big lie. The bush admin scared us with talk of mushroom clouds, yet he had NO nukes at all. The worst he could have done is give them some old expired mustard gas that would have at worst given me a rash.

    However, the most important question to ask is if invading Iraq was the right choice given the context. 

    Did invading Iraq make sense when there were greater threats? 

    Did it make sense when most of the crazy terrorists come from saudi arabia and pakistan? 

    After getting rid of Saddam would the situation get better or worse? It's looking worse right now.

    Does the enormous cost justify the benefit, if there is any benefit at all?

    If Saddam was the issue why are we still there?
  • stopmediabias said on Jun 15, 2008....

    "Saddam had on WMD that were a threat to us."

    Every major intelligence organization, public servant, and other countries believed he did.  It came out in the recent 60 minutes episode that Saddam had said his stock of WMD's didn't matter because he was in the process of making more.  You also seem to missing the point not knowing where tons of VX gas is just as much of threat.

  • bloc said on Jun 15, 2008....
    "Every major intelligence organization, public servant, and other countries believed he did"

    Believed he has what exactly, nukes? Also, with what degree of certainty did they believe it? This is important. i may believe it is 60% likely that x will be true. That 60% belief may not be enough certainty for me to take action y. 

    The Bush admin claimed that Iraq was an immediate threat to our country, and every major intelligence organization did NOT believe this to be true. 

Comment on "What do you have to say about WMD now?"

bush politics iraq saddam Osama (Click to add tags below)

(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper....
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses....

Sarah Palin would be a disaster for the Republicans,
in my humble opinion.

...