McClellan gives no new evidence (his charges are out of a Woodward book!?!?!)

[Wretched Excess]

it just gets worse and worse for scotty.  this silly little man is getting used like the only bic in a crack house.

McClellan gives no new evidence

Scott McClellan's most explosive charges about the Iraq war are based not on any new evidence but rather on his reading of books and magazine articles after leaving the White House and on a period of "reflection."

On morning talk shows this morning, Mr. McClellan repeated a statement from his book: that he charges President Bush with a misleading the country into war based on reading a book by reporter Bob Woodward.

Mr. McClellan said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he realized Mr. Bush had in late 2001 made up his mind to invade Iraq "when the president did interviews with Bob Woodward for his book."
Yet Mr. McClellan also called on other public officials to "come forward and share their candid insights about what they lived and what they learned from it."

During the interview, the 40-year old former Bush administration press secretary defended his portrait of Mr. Bush as "too stubborn to change and grow," but also admitted he should have voiced his doubts and questions about the march to war in 2002 and 2003.

Mr. McClellan made no effort, however, to bolster the sourcing for the most serious charge in his book, that the president based the case for war on possible weapons of mass destruction only to hide his true motivation: the introduction of "coercive democracy" in the Middle East.

This charge has been given great authority because of Mr. McClellan's former status as a White House insider.

But a close reading of his book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washingtons Culture of Corruption," shows that he reveals no new information about the presidents motives.

The White House and many of Mr. McClellan's former colleagues have honed in on this issue in the days after several newspapers obtained copies of the book on Tuesday night, several days in advance of its official release today.

More

[Lord Undies]

This will all be forgotten by Thursday.  The MSM is embarrassing themselves and they know it.  We can look for this "book" to do an Orwellian disappearing act real fast. 

**No one expected the White House to defend themselves on this - with good reason.  This "book" thing isn't working out like the plan.

[Willow]

thirty pieces of silver!

[Wretched Excess]

This will all be forgotten by Thursday.  The MSM is embarrassing themselves and they know it.  We can look for this "book" to do an Orwellian disappearing act real fast. 

**No one expected the White House to defend themselves on this - with good reason.  This "book" thing isn't working out like the plan.

ah, but I heard all over the internets and all around that MSM that it is the #1 selling title on  amazon.com ;  just ahead of the latest installation of a "young adult saga", and the dungeons and dragons rule book.

[Chris_]

My guess is they're going to slowly leak bits and pieces of 'scandalous'-sounding headlines to keep this going as long as possible... like this one:

McClellan: Bush should have fired Rove

WASHINGTON - President Bush broke his promise to the country by refusing to fire aide Karl Rove for leaking a CIA agent's identity, said Scott McClellan, the president's chief spokesman for almost three years.
 
 "I think the president should have stood by his word and that meant Karl should have left," McClellan said Sunday in a broadcast interview about his new tell-all book, a scathing rebuke of the White House under Bush's leadership.

McClellan now acknowledges he felt burned by Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. He said Rove and Libby assured him they were not involved in leaking CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, and he repeated those assurances to reporters.

[franksolich]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

[JohnMatrix]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

[Wretched Excess]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

no, see, they were being oppressed by dictators and tyrants at the time.  that's sorta the whole freaking point.  if you think that's such a great life, I encourage you to try it.

[formerlurker]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.  

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.  

A student of history understands the significance.

[formerlurker]

My guess is they're going to slowly leak bits and pieces of 'scandalous'-sounding headlines to keep this going as long as possible... like this one:

McClellan: Bush should have fired Rove

WASHINGTON - President Bush broke his promise to the country by refusing to fire aide Karl Rove for leaking a CIA agent's identity, said Scott McClellan, the president's chief spokesman for almost three years.
 
 "I think the president should have stood by his word and that meant Karl should have left," McClellan said Sunday in a broadcast interview about his new tell-all book, a scathing rebuke of the White House under Bush's leadership.

McClellan now acknowledges he felt burned by Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. He said Rove and Libby assured him they were not involved in leaking CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, and he repeated those assurances to reporters.

Karl Rove didn't leak the name of a CIA agent.

[JohnMatrix]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

[Wretched Excess]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?

[formerlurker]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

Of course it was.   What was the vote for then? 

Who said we are leaving?   

[JohnMatrix]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?

There is no natural attraction to democracy.  That's a myth invented by Wilson.  If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago?  I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship.  They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it.  People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.

[JohnMatrix]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

Of course it was.   What was the vote for then? 

Who said we are leaving?   

whether they wanted shiites in power or sunnis.  If a democrat wins, we will probably leave soon.

[formerlurker]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

Of course it was.   What was the vote for then? 

Who said we are leaving?   

whether they wanted shiites in power or sunnis.  If a democrat wins, we will probably leave soon.

Uh, that is not democracy? (it was a little more than that by the way)

I am so confused as to our upcoming Novembers elections are for then...........

[JohnMatrix]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

Of course it was.   What was the vote for then? 

Who said we are leaving?   

whether they wanted shiites in power or sunnis.  If a democrat wins, we will probably leave soon.

Uh, that is not democracy? (it was a little more than that by the way)

I am so confused as to our upcoming Novembers elections are for then...........

my point is their democracy was imposed on them.  They had no choice in the matter.

[formerlurker]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?

There is no natural attraction to democracy.  That's a myth invented by Wilson.  If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago?  I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship.  They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it.  People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.

Karl Marx,  is that you?  

People care about FREEDOM.   Say it with me, I know you can -- F-R-E-E-D-O-M.  

Freedom and democracy kind of go hand in hand.    

[Lord Undies]

There is no natural attraction to democracy.  That's a myth invented by Wilson.  If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago?  I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship.  They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it.  People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.

^ ^ ^ I have found it!  The most stupid statement CC has hosted yet.

[Wretched Excess]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?

There is no natural attraction to democracy.  That's a myth invented by Wilson.  If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago?  I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship.  They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it.  People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.

that post actually started off almost semi-sane.  it certainly didn't end that way.

[formerlurker]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

Of course it was.   What was the vote for then? 

Who said we are leaving?   

whether they wanted shiites in power or sunnis.  If a democrat wins, we will probably leave soon.

Uh, that is not democracy? (it was a little more than that by the way)

I am so confused as to our upcoming Novembers elections are for then...........

my point is their democracy was imposed on them.  They had no choice in the matter.

Of course they did.  We removed their dictator, and allowed them to chose which form of government they wanted for their country.  They chose democracy.  

They had no choice in Saddam Hussein and his regime.  That was imposed on them.   Their elections were not free.   Please know the difference.

[JohnMatrix]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?

There is no natural attraction to democracy.  That's a myth invented by Wilson.  If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago?  I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship.  They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it.  People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.

that post actually started off almost semi-sane.  it certainly didn't end that way.

nice response.  Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling. 

[Wretched Excess]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?

There is no natural attraction to democracy.  That's a myth invented by Wilson.  If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago?  I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship.  They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it.  People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.

that post actually started off almost semi-sane.  it certainly didn't end that way.

nice response.  Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling. 

no, name calling would be "YOU are ****ing insane".  I merely implied that your POST was ****ing insane.

there is a difference.

[JohnMatrix]

I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.

In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.

were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?

In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it.  Several times.   

Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people.  Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region. 

A student of history understands the significance.

The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.

Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.

people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?

There is no natural attraction to democracy.  That's a myth invented by Wilson.  If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago?  I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship.  They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it.  People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.

that post actually started off almost semi-sane.  it certainly didn't end that way.

nice response.  Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling. 

no, name calling would be "YOU are ******* insane".  I merely implied that your POST was ******* insane.

there is a difference.

yet it was a "non-response" nonetheless.  Tell me, why did democracies as we know them not emerge until recently in history?  Since people naturally want to have them, why didn't they emerge 3,000 years ago?

[JohnMatrix]

There is no natural attraction to democracy.  That's a myth invented by Wilson.  If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago?  I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship.  They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it.  People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.

^ ^ ^ I have found it!  The most stupid statement CC has hosted yet.

interesting.  Do you know anyone who has lived in a country that was a dictatorship, which then had a violent revolution, and then became a less than stable democracy?