Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out

[Brassmask]

And still no proofs ?

Sells books , that is a lot of temptation.

Only President Bush is held to such a standard , what President never did lie?

An ability to lie is practicly on the job description.

And with several people well motivated by the availibility of payment that they odviously want , there is still no proof .

Suppose Barak Obama is caught in ONE lie , .... disqualified?

Last I heard the best evidence in a court of law is an EYEWITNESS.

The problem with Bush's lies (as I suppose with some others like LBJ and Nixon) thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of non-Americans have died or been maimed because of their lies.

If Obama (or Dean or Kucinich or anyone else you think I idolize) is caught in a lie, then they will be judged accordingly.  My judgement of them will be equally harsh should anyone I "like" be caught lying that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

[Brassmask]

You'll note none of those people actually sent troops in to illegally invade Iraq.

In fact, Clinton refused to invade Iraq.

Better yet, when he was catching hell from his friends for not taking the opportunity to follow Saddam's troops into Iraq and take him out, Bush 41 (and his advisors) wisely refused to do so.  I just watched the American Experience documentary on Bush 41 and James Baker flatly stated that friends and associates were constantly badgering him about why they didn't go on in and his punchline to that was: "Well, no one asks me that question anymore."

[Christians4LessGvt]

You'll note none of those people actually sent troops in to illegally invade Iraq.
In fact, Clinton refused to invade Iraq.

Which is even worse!
To admit such a threat is there and do nothing is worse.
At least Bush seeing the threat that all of them admitted was there responded.

[Amianthus]

Last I heard the best evidence in a court of law is an EYEWITNESS.

Tell that to all the people convicted based on eyewitness testimony, only to be released later based on forensic evidence (usually DNA).

Any decent prosecutor will tell you that eyewitness testimony is usually pretty bad.

[sirs]

Last I heard the best evidence in a court of law is an EYEWITNESS.

Tell that to all the people convicted based on eyewitness testimony, only to be released later based on forensic evidence (usually DNA).

D'OH

[Michael Tee]

<<To admit such a threat is there and not do anything is worse.
<<At least Bush seeing the threat that all of them admitted was there responded.>>

To see (or to pretend to see) the threat is one thing.  I don't believe that any of the folks you referred to as "seeing the threat" advocated taking no action, nor did they ever claim that there was no alternative to invasion.  Bush pretended to see a threat.  I say "pretended" because it is absurd for a nation as powerful as the U.S.A. to be threatened by Iraq.  So did all the other Republocrats, pandering as usual to their Zionist and other patrons, some also very closely connected to the oil and construction businesses about to profit so handsomely from the invasion.

But it was Bush, not all the others, who led the nation when the decision to invade was made.  It was Bush and his criminal administration who had the responsibility at that critical moment, when hundreds of thousands of lives, American and Iraqi, hung in the balance, to act in the real interests of the American people, not for the Zionist lobby, not for the oil industry and not for KBR.  And Bush, asking for public support of his war, "persuaded" the American people with (according to Scott McClellan) "propaganda" and "manipulation" and "shading the truth."

You keep saying that Bush was "responding to a threat."  The other POV, of course, is that there was no threat, he knew there was no threat, and he LIED about the existence of a threat in order to justify an illegal and immoral act of unprovoked aggression that has now taken hundreds of thousands of human lives and cost the American people more than three trillion dollars.

Americans have a choice - - to vote for a continuation of the Bush administration in the person of John McCain, or to hope (and I don't put it any higher than a "hope") that Barak Obama will deliver a change in the direction of the country AWAY from the Bush-McCain path.  I just see it as a personal choice - - if you're satisfied with what Bush has done, if you want to stay on that path, then fine: vote McCain.  This is obviously plane's way, and sirs' way and probably yours as well.  Hell, plane doesn't care even if Bush DID lie - - "Don't all Presidents lie?" he asks rhetorically, and goes on to state that it's part of the job description.  Well, go vote for Bush's guy, then, the "maverick" John McCain.  He's off to a good start in the lying, cheating and swindling field, he's a Charter Member of the Keating Five.  More recently he pulled the same shit with Paxson, another dicey contributor he did favours for.  Is Obama just an empty suit with a great slogan and some really slick PR?  I'm starting to think that's the case, but in him, you have a chance to vote for someone who MIGHT be different.  Or might not.  Not the greatest of choices, but I know which one makes more sense.

[Plane]

"But it was Bush, not all the others, who led the nation when the decision to invade was made.  It was Bush and his criminal administration who had the responsibility at that critical moment, when hundreds of thousands of lives, American and Iraqi, hung in the balance..."

What would have been better if Bush had chosen otherwise?

It is clear that leftists wopuld have liked him no better , but that isn't my point .

What would have been better about leaveing all of those people for Saddam to kill instead of us?

[Brassmask]

Tell that to all the people convicted based on eyewitness testimony, only to be released later based on forensic evidence (usually DNA).

Any decent prosecutor will tell you that eyewitness testimony is usually pretty bad.

My van is white.

[Plane]

Tell that to all the people convicted based on eyewitness testimony, only to be released later based on forensic evidence (usually DNA).

Any decent prosecutor will tell you that eyewitness testimony is usually pretty bad.

My van is white.

If someone asks me later what sort of vehicle you have I can tell them that your van is white.


This is known as heresay , which a lot of Scott McLellen's book seems to be.

Isn't one of his storys that he saw two guys talking ?

He seems to have formed a lot of this opinion after he started writeing this book , perhaps after he had an advance.

Not much evidence of this sort of thinking before money is involved .

So basicly you are right to say "Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out"

[Michael Tee]

<<What would have been better if Bush had chosen otherwise?>>

Well, Iraq would have been spared the hundreds of thousands of deaths and maimings that resulted from the invasion and its anarchic aftermath.  Would have been spared the tens of thousands of corpses still turning up daily with "marks of torture" on them.  Spared the arrests in the middle of the night of dozens of thousands of Resistance members and suspected Resistance members, spared the tortures of Abu Ghraib and wherever these poor buggers are now being transported to be abused, raped, tortured and murdered in the dark.  Spared the rapes, the murders, the insults of racist redneck Marines.  America would definitely have a better image in the rest of the world, saved three trillion bucks . . . a whole lotta things would have been a whole lot better, plane.

<<It is clear that leftists wopuld have liked him no better , but that isn't my point .>>

Well, I'm a leftist, and I can tell you in all honesty, I never liked the guy but I never hated him as much as I do now, and that hatred is purely due to his war crimes and atrocities.  If there was some kind of loathing scale, rating "the left's" loathing for Bush, I think it's entirely fair to say that the indicator was within reasonable bounds before the invasion and at this point it's way over the top.

<<What would have been better about leaveing all of those people for Saddam to kill instead of us?>>

Probably would have killed and tortured less than got killed and tortured due to the invasion and you'd still have the three trill and there wouldn't be millions of forced exiles and millions of internally displaced and homeless.  Most of the Iraqis I know look back nostalgically at their life in Iraq before the First Gulf War.  And every one of them is a refugee from Saddam Hussein.

[Plane]

<<What would have been better if Bush had chosen otherwise?>>

Well, Iraq would have been spared the hundreds of thousands of deaths and maimings that resulted from the invasion and its anarchic aftermath. 

[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Purely speculative , I speculate exactly the other way with good reason.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][]

<<It is clear that leftists wopuld have liked him no better , but that isn't my point .>>

Well, I'm a leftist, and I can tell you in all honesty, I never liked the guy but I never hated him as much as I do now, and that hatred is purely due to his war crimes and atrocities.  If there was some kind of loathing scale, rating "the left's" loathing for Bush, I think it's entirely fair to say that the indicator was within reasonable bounds before the invasion and at this point it's way over the top.

[][][][][][][][][][][][]
 I never noticed a reasonable bound , what was that like?
[][][][][][][][][][]

<<What would have been better about leaveing all of those people for Saddam to kill instead of us?>>

Probably would have killed and tortured less than got killed and tortured due to the invasion ......"

Quite the contrary , Saddam was very prone to make war , he seldom left his Own population alone and he often attacked his neighbors the casualtys of our whole invasion period do not equal yet the number killed in any one year of his eight year fight with Iran. I think your speculations are very poorly founded.





"...and you'd still have the three trill and there wouldn't be millions of forced exiles and millions of internally displaced and homeless.  Most of the Iraqis I know look back nostalgically at their life in Iraq before the First Gulf War.  And every one of them is a refugee from Saddam Hussein.
[/quote]


You haven't met any one who had to leave Iraq because Americans were chaseing them out?

If we are so much worse than Saddam , then why did Saddam produce many refugees and we produce few?

[Michael Tee]

<<If we are so much worse than Saddam , then why did Saddam produce many refugees and we produce few?>>

I can't speak for the American refugee process, but in Canada, a refugee has to bring himself or herself within the definition of the UN Convention on Refugees, which basically requires them to prove a "well-founded fear of persecution" due to religious, racial or political identity, gender persecution, etc.  Under Saddam Hussein, many people, Christians especially, were easily able to prove their entitlement to refugee status.

Today, Saddam is gone, and "officially" the country is a "democracy" and doesn't persecute anyone.  There are obviously people being killed daily for their religion, but the problem with their seeking refugee status is that they have the "internal flight alternative" option inside Iraq.  In Canadian law, if you can avoid persecution in your own country by "internal flight" - - i.e., by moving to a safe area within the country - - you won't qualify as a refugee.  So a Sunni in a mixed area who can achieve relative safety by moving to an all-Sunni area has an "IFA" which disentitles him to refugee status.  This is why most of our Iraqi refugees in Canada came in as refugees from Saddam's time, not afterwards.

You actually have produced millions of Iraqi refugees, but they are living in other middle eastern countries, Syria for example, Jordan too.  Hundreds of thousands (illegally) in Greece and Turkey.  They're all over the place but we don't see them much in North America.  This invasion is a fucking catastrophe for millions and it's just amazing how little Americans know of the extent of it.

[Brassmask]

If someone asks me later what sort of vehicle you have I can tell them that your van is white.

I was really only curious whether or not Ami would try to tell me it was not white.  He seems to only ever want to disagree.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"You keep saying that Bush was "responding to a threat." 
The other POV, of course, is that there was no threat"

Quit playing silly ass games.
I am saying Bush was "responding to a threat" in regard to the quotes i posted.
Those quotes clearly show many of the Democratic Party leaders also believed there was a threat.

[Michael Tee]

<<Quit playing silly ass games.>>

Can't quit cuz I never started.

<<I am saying Bush was "responding to a threat" in regard to the quotes i posted.
<<Those quotes clearly show many of the Democratic Party leaders also believed there was a threat.>>

They show no such thing.  One day you should learn the difference between "saying" and "believing."  Especially with regard to American politicians.

There is a group of special interests that wanted war with Iraq.  They spend hundreds of millions on politicians to get them on board.   When politicians like Cynthia McKinnon stand up to them, they spend what it takes to get her opponent elected and her turfed out.  Most politicians know the lesson of Cynthia McKinnon and most will say what their paymasters tell them to say.  Few have the courage or the resources to stand up to them.

You heard from the people they bought.  All of them, Albright, Clinton, etc.You like to quote from the whores, but not from the people who can't be bought, not from the Ron Pauls, the Ralph Naders, the Noam Chomskys, the Cynthia McKinnons.