Gee that couldn't have had anything to do with him seeking Democratic presidential support from Alan Patricof and Al Gore (aka the Goracle). Clarke believed in the old GOP ideology (Reagan). Back when the "neo" was not attached to conservatism.Turquoise wrote:
I'm sure he'll be disowned by the neocons as quickly as Clarke was, but I'm glad he's coming out with this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … mp;sub=newFormer White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war."
McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not "employing out-and-out deception" to make their case for war in 2002.
But in a chapter titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."
"Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."
McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."
hes pointing out the obvious a little too late IMO. where the fuck was he at while this was going on?ATG wrote:
Opinions are like assholes, McLellan is one and has one.
I usually take this as political maneuvering; he wants to have a political future.
Not that I dissagree with him, he's just pointing out the obvious.
Gimme a break, it's not like he got a blowjob or anything.Dilbert_X wrote:
4,000 US Soldiers dead, trillions of dollars spent, isn't this impeachment material?
Last edited by chittydog (2008-05-28 08:04:15)
Its the first time its been done to mount an illegal war.But here is a revelation that the administration worked to bring the public sentiment in line with their policy...shocking! The first time in history that this has ever occurred!
Study history please. This was no less illegal than the current conflict.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its the first time its been done to mount an illegal war.But here is a revelation that the administration worked to bring the public sentiment in line with their policy...shocking! The first time in history that this has ever occurred!
Thank you for the laughs.Diesel_dyk wrote:
NeoCons are just social conservative with a strong imperialist bent. 70 years ago they would have been called Nazi's. NeoCons are not really conservatives at all but are the worst type of socialists.
Here's a little Sesame Street for you
Social..........................................................................Conservatism
Social......................................Conservatism
Social......Conservatism
Socialism
Anyway, a friend once told me that the truth is like $hit in a septic tank - eventually it leaks out
I am sure we will hear more and more about this. Too bad this guy didn't speak up sooner!!!! now its too late to impeach and later after Bush is out no one is going to waste poitical capital to go after him.
But may be Rove might still get to grab his ankles in prison, he does have lots of enemies. one can only hope. After all they did get DeLay.
Strange how the world body that determines the legality of things like that hasn't deemed it illegal enough to care.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its the first time its been done to mount an illegal war.But here is a revelation that the administration worked to bring the public sentiment in line with their policy...shocking! The first time in history that this has ever occurred!
Well aren't you a troll of a person. You don't have any principles or values, you follow the political wind. Watch, if Obama gets elected, people will start to say "oh, this is heaven"; and people like you will believe it, mask the truth. Think for your own, ok?IRONCHEF wrote:
Was it known that ROVE directly participated in the firings of US Attorneys? No. It is officially refuted by the WH and media...despite the public knowing otherwise. Now we know officially that he was. THere's one example. And yes, it's big..not because it's a tabloid fetish to read this crap, but because this is a huge deal legally and nationally since they have avoided congressional scrutiny by yet further deception, abuse of power, and other illegalities. His testimony will likely be sought after now that his book is public...and I doubt he'll recuse himself.
Last edited by SoC./Omega (2008-05-29 06:57:53)
I really wouldn't call that being ripped. I did notice you removed your reference to "rat" in the OP and then you had this here:Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
I got ripped for calling him a rat 2 years ago.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=21446
In yo face moofos AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I have a feeling that you are referring to two different definitions of rat here.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
edit: I noticed you stated me calling him a rat was ignorant on my part. That was not meant as a personal defamation of calling the former Press Secretary a rat. It was meant as rats abandoning a sinking ship.....since Karl Rove is no longer head of policy anymore either. So I can call you ignorant for misreading right?
This should prove only one thing. You can't trust either party.SoC./Omega wrote:
Well aren't you a troll of a person. You don't have any principles or values, you follow the political wind. Watch, if Obama gets elected, people will start to say "oh, this is heaven"; and people like you will believe it, mask the truth. Think for your own, ok?IRONCHEF wrote:
Was it known that ROVE directly participated in the firings of US Attorneys? No. It is officially refuted by the WH and media...despite the public knowing otherwise. Now we know officially that he was. THere's one example. And yes, it's big..not because it's a tabloid fetish to read this crap, but because this is a huge deal legally and nationally since they have avoided congressional scrutiny by yet further deception, abuse of power, and other illegalities. His testimony will likely be sought after now that his book is public...and I doubt he'll recuse himself.
Shame on you, no one deserves to be hung.
Except Saddam; he deserved it.
Dilbert, how was this war "illegal"? Look, even the democrats wanted this war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBc … re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr88gkQ-QMY
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-05-29 22:06:17)
...the war will probably continue. Unless he gets taken over by a Carterian body-snatcher.SoC./Omega wrote:
Watch, if Obama gets elected...
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-05-29 23:35:39)
-cough- Bill Clinton -cough-unnamednewbie13 wrote:
He'll be slammed just like liberals bash their 'turncoats.'...the war will probably continue. Unless he gets taken over by a Carterian body-snatcher.SoC./Omega wrote:
Watch, if Obama gets elected...
