Former White House Press Secretary Blasts Bush

LaxAttack09 · May 29, 2008, 2:05am

If I remember correctly Clinton said Saddam was developing WMD’s and was a threat to America?? I think the way Bush handled this situation will go down as a bigtime blunder (this from somebody very conservative) however I think it’s a bit hypocritical for democrats to jump on him like they are moral crusaders when it comes to foreign policy regarding Iraq.

LongPrime · May 29, 2008, 2:28am

^“bigtime blunder”

The blunder is the People’s blunder.

What happens if the line between the People and the President fail? Clinton and Congress had strained relations. Bush and Congress/People put even greater tension on the Constitution relationships. Will Congress, People, President ever trust each other and work towards a better USA?

curious77 · May 29, 2008, 9:51am

It is the People’s blunder. They elected Bush in 2004 when we knew no WMDs had been found, we knew we had been sold a war like a new car (Andy Card anyone). They stomped on anyone who was against going to war in Iraq. I personally was made an outcast in 2003. My son was hooted at for wearing a Peace t-shirt to school before Bush attacked. A boy in a mall in upstate ny was thrown out for wearing an anti-war t-shirt. I have had a peace sign sticker on my car since 2002 and it has been peeled off more than once and the car has been scratched. Not so much anymore. But I blame the People of the US. They were fooled the first time, but to elect Bush in 2004 was a travesty from which the US will never recover.

mini · May 29, 2008, 10:54am

"If I remember correctly Clinton said Saddam was developing WMD’s and was a threat to America?? "

Said. But there was absolutely not a single shred of evidence that there was there were actually weapons being produced, a program to produce them, or even a plan to produce them, when Clinton/Tenet lied to the Democrats, convincing them that their was an imminent threat.

No further evidence ever surfaced except for “Curveball”. Without exception, all “intelligence” on WMD post Clinton’s bombing of Iraq came from a single source, a source the White House knew was false when they decided to proceed with the aggressive, hostile occupation:

[Amazon.com:</a> Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War: Bob Drogin: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Curveball-Spies-Lies-Con-Caused/dp/1400065836/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212072818&sr=8-1]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Curveball-Spies-Lies-Con-Caused/dp/1400065836/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212072818&sr=8-1)

BedHead · May 29, 2008, 11:48am

For the last 20 yrs Bullet has been defending your right to say these statement, throughout the entire time we as a fmily have never expressed any opinions about military direction! If you don’t get it, my husband has been serving the nation and putting his family 2nd for you and your family. He has missed birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, and school plays to be told that this is the wrong war! There is no right war. I have cried myself to sleep, hidden the fact to my children that he was in Iraq. I live with the fact that he might die tomorrow, and you think his death would be “useless”, but you will not be holding our children as they cry, instead, you will be someone they overhear at Wal-Mart stating this war is wrong! Next time you decide to say that someone died b/c of Bush’s propaganda and that we are trillions in debt, please realize that a child of a deployed parent is reading it. Because to them the money doesn’t matter, what matters is that you stop reminding us how many have died…we are acutely aware of it. Also don’t tell us you support the troops, but this is a war we didn’t need to be in, it doesn’t the soothe pain for a wife sleeping by herself looking at the wedding ring he had to leave behind. It doesn’t help the child missing their parent and wondering why they had to go!

The closest I have come to anything you’ve experienced, BulletandP, is that I’ve had friends serve in Iraq and I worried about them a lot.

Nonetheless, as much as I am concerned for your husband and family and esteem greatly his willingness to serve which affords us generally our security, I can’t agree that there are no right wars. I am not a pacifist. Some wars are worth fighting. World War II is a shining example; a war to defend ourselves against a tyranny with ambitions of world domination.

The War in Iraq, on the other hand, was a war to give Iraq as you said the opportunity to have democracy. This was, it was thought, a good way to change the dynamic of the Arab world and create a demonstration that that part of the world could support friendly, democratic regimes.

The problem, BulletandP, is that outside invaders and occupiers (as the US is viewed) aren’t the ones to provide an opportunity for democratization. This was a terrible conceit of this war. Outside invaders quickly become occupiers. They are not uniformly welcomed and they quickly become an enemy to depose. In the cauldron of Iraq they have primarilly become a cover for the Shi’ite majority in Iraq to go after, or wait it out, for broad control of Iraq. Yes, Saddam and his horrible spawn have been deposed, but with all due respect, we can’t try to remedy every situation around the world where horrible dictators such as Saddam enact these injustices on their own populations. What are we doing now in Sudan/Zimbabwe/DROC/Myanmar, etc?

What we’ve gained, unfortunately, through your husband’s noble sacrifice in Iraq is a stronger Iran, a fractured Iraq, no prospects that further presence there is going to achieve our objectives, incredible debt, and – yes – 4,300+ perished fellow countrymen/women.

Please don’t tell me because I have ALWAYS thought this war was a bad idea and would be pointless that I don’t support the troops or am unpatriotic or that I can’t be aware of the sacrifices families such as yours make. I am acutely aware. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t be engaged in what I am writing now.

It may be painful for you to realize that true patriots see no value in this war. I am sorry you are put in such a position.

mini · May 29, 2008, 12:14pm

“Yes, Saddam and his horrible spawn have been deposed, but with all due respect, we can’t try to remedy every situation around the world where horrible dictators such as Saddam enact these injustices on their own populations.”

Saddam Hussein didn’t kill even a quarter of the number of Iraqis (or even an eighth the number of children) killed by Bill Clinton (forget the current Pres., who was so blitzed and killed so many brain cells, he can’t even remember whether he ever used cocaine.)

“The War in Iraq, on the other hand, was a war to give Iraq as you said the opportunity to have democracy.”

The War was fought to provide for a permanent U.S. military presence in the Middle East, now that our owners in Saudi Arabia had kicked us out.

bulletandpima · May 29, 2008, 2:48pm

Let’s take a serious look at Hussein.

Saddam killed over 180,000 Kurds, many died from chemical weapons. He invaded Kuwait. He stole Billions from his people for his personal gain from the Food for Oil program (remember the 18 wheeler), while his citizens lived with no food. He held civilians as shields. He killed the father of his grandchildren.

As far as a permanent base created from Gulf II, hate to break it to you…the military never totally left Saudi Arabia since 91(I am not sure of the exact number, but we still have military members stationed there). Also we were already based in the area…Incirlik, Turkey. Incirlik is a base that has existed for decades, and as the crow flies, AF jets can easily strike the targets. Many of the Air Force missions for Operation Northern Watch over the no fly zone came from this base. We may have decided to move to Qatar, but the US military still trains Saudi AF, it is not as if we have no diplomatic relations. Also, many of the Southern Watch missions were performed by the Navy, thus no reason for us to be there.

Hitler was a despot, Churchill believed he was no big deal, but history proves Churchill was wrong. We knew for a fact that Hussein was a thug and had used chemical weapons on his own people.

Invading may not have been right, I don’t know. I also don’t know if invading didn’t stop another loon from destroying the world. Nobody knows that answer.

Finally,

If Bush or any other president decided that anyone who lives in Maine should die, and went out and killed them in a horrible manner, the world should turn a blind eye to it…afterall they can’t remedy every situation around the world where horrible leaders enact injustices on their own population

What is the exact number of deaths that must occur b4 we step in and say knock it off and if you don’t knock it off we will make you stop?

bulletandpima · May 29, 2008, 3:17pm

Bedhead,

Last time I checked the real tyrant in WWII was Hitler and if I recall correctly Japan bombed us. Did he have world ambitions? Yes, but so did Napolean, and where did that get him? Hitler knew he needed help and sought out help from other countries.

I agree…don’t fall off your chair now ;)

I will admit that I am a little to close to the situation, but I will also state that I am sick and tired of people saying we shouldn’t be there!
That is similiar to a child looking at the spilt milk on the floor and repeatedly saying, but I didn’t mean to!

We are there, we have been there for 18 yrs…yes 18 yrs (people seem to forget about Operation Northern/Southern Watch. We have spent way more than the trillions spent just in the past 5 yrs. The AF and Navy never left the area since 1990. Squadrons were deployed for 4-6 mos at a clip to fly over the no fly area…do you think that didn’t cost a dime?

Back on point…we are there, now we need to figure out how to clean the spilt milk up. Stop staring at the floor, and saying how much milk was lost, how the family could have used it in a more positive manner and address what we need to fix it!

I do not know you at all, but I am sure you are a patriot. SO let’s stop arguing about whether this is the right or wrong war…let’s discuss how we believe we can get the troops home and assist in giving Iraq a true democracy and leave it better than when we invaded.

I will still defend only one point be mindful of stating useless deaths or they died in vain, you and I don’t know every poster and you might touch on a very powerful trigger. I have heard people in line at Wal-Mart, Target, Harris Teeter openly discussing how they have pity for those that died b/c they were lied to…let me translate…I am so sorry they died, but they were stupid enough to follow.

LaxAttack09 · May 29, 2008, 3:45pm

Which is why I get a bit irked when democrats jump on Bush for the “lie of the century.” Where were these people back in 98? I think you’re nuts mini, but at least you’re consistent.

BedHead · May 29, 2008, 3:55pm

Don’t count me among those. One of my best friends joined up well into the war. I worried like heck about him, but I never questioned his decision. And I certainly know he’s not stupid.

While I agree with you about spilt milk (Colin Powell called this the Pottery Barn rule: “You break it, you own it”), here is the best way to deal with the splilt milk, in my opinion:

Zbigniew Brzezinski | The Smart Way Out

Sunday 30 March 2008

»

by: Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Washington Post

<pre><code>Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States should end its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their possible inauguration. The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a hundred years, until “victory.” The core issue of this campaign is thus a basic disagreement over the merits of the war and the benefits and costs of continuing it.

The case for U.S. disengagement from combat is compelling in its own right. But it must be matched by a comprehensive political and diplomatic effort to mitigate the destabilizing regional consequences of a war that the outgoing Bush administration started deliberately, justified demagogically and waged badly. (I write, of course, as a Democrat; while I prefer Sen. Barack Obama, I speak here for myself.)

The contrast between the Democratic argument for ending the war and the Republican argument for continuing is sharp and dramatic. The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for “staying the course” draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios. President Bush’s and Sen. John McCain’s forecasts of regional catastrophe are quite reminiscent of the predictions of “falling dominoes” that were used to justify continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Neither has provided any real evidence that ending the war would mean disaster, but their fear-mongering makes prolonging it easier.

Nonetheless, if the American people had been asked more than five years ago whether Bush’s obsession with the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth 4,000 American lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars - not to mention the less precisely measurable damage to the United States’ world-wide credibility, legitimacy and moral standing - the answer almost certainly would have been an unequivocal “no.”

Nor do the costs of this fiasco end there. The war has inflamed anti-American passions in the Middle East and South Asia while fragmenting Iraqi society and increasing the influence of Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to Baghdad offers ample testimony that even the U.S.-installed government in Iraq is becoming susceptible to Iranian blandishments.

In brief, the war has become a national tragedy, an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster and a global boomerang for the United States. Ending it is thus in the highest national interest.

Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military decision. It will require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S. capacity to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat (e.g., from Iran); it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for the Iraqi armed forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The decision to militarily disengage will also have to be accompanied by political and regional initiatives designed to guard against potential risks. We should fully discuss our decisions with Iraqi leaders, including those not residing in Baghdad’s Green Zone, and we should hold talks on regional stability with all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran.

Contrary to Republican claims that our departure will mean calamity, a sensibly conducted disengagement will actually make Iraq more stable over the long term. The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour byproduct of the destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it shatters Iraqi society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British colonial era, the longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups will have to compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. A serious dialogue with the Iraqi leaders about the forthcoming U.S. disengagement would shake them out of their stupor.

Ending the U.S. war effort entails some risks, of course, but they are inescapable at this late date. Parts of Iraq are already self-governing, including Kurdistan, part of the Shiite south and some tribal areas in the Sunni center. U.S. military disengagement will accelerate Iraqi competition to more effectively control their territory, which may produce a phase of intensified inter-Iraqi conflicts. But that hazard is the unavoidable consequence of the prolonged U.S. occupation. The longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be for a viable Iraqi state ever to reemerge.

It is also important to recognize that most of the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq has not been inspired by al-Qaeda. Locally based jihadist groups have gained strength only insofar as they have been able to identify themselves with the fight against a hated foreign occupier. As the occupation winds down and Iraqis take responsibility for internal security, al-Qaeda in Iraq will be left more isolated and less able to sustain itself. The end of the occupation will thus be a boon for the war on al-Qaeda, bringing to an end a misguided adventure that not only precipitated the appearance of al-Qaeda in Iraq but also diverted the United States from Afghanistan, where the original al-Qaeda threat grew and still persists.

Bringing the U.S. military effort to a close would also smooth the way for a broad U.S. initiative addressed to all of Iraq’s neighbors. Some will remain reluctant to engage in any discussion as long as Washington appears determined to maintain its occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Therefore, at some stage next year, after the decision to disengage has been announced, a regional conference should be convened to promote regional stability, border control and other security arrangements, as well as regional economic development - all of which would help mitigate the unavoidable risks connected with U.S. disengagement.

Since Iraq’s neighbors are vulnerable to intensified ethnic and religious conflicts spilling over from Iraq, all of them - albeit for different reasons - are likely to be interested. More distant Arab states such as Egypt, Morocco or Algeria might also take part, and some of them might be willing to provide peacekeeping forces to Iraq once it is free of foreign occupation. In addition, we should consider a regional rehabilitation program designed to help Iraq recover and to relieve the burdens that Jordan and Syria, in particular, have shouldered by hosting more than 2 million Iraqi refugees.

The overall goal of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to undo the errors of recent years should be cooling down the Middle East, instead of heating it up. The “unipolar moment” that the Bush administration’s zealots touted after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered to generate a policy based on the unilateral use of force, military threats and occupation masquerading as democratization - all of which has pointlessly heated up tensions, fueled anti-colonial resentments and bred religious fanaticism. The long-range stability of the Middle East has been placed in increasing jeopardy.

Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the Middle East, but other measures will be needed. It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations - on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses. But such negotiations are unlikely as long as Washington’s price of participation is unreciprocated concessions from Tehran. Threats to use force on Iran are also counterproductive because they tend to fuse Iranian nationalism with religious fanaticism.

Real progress in the badly stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process would also help soothe the region’s religious and nationalist passions. But for such progress to take place, the United States must vigorously help the two sides start making the mutual concessions without which a historic compromise cannot be achieved. Peace between Israel and Palestine would be a giant step toward greater regional stability, and it would finally let both Israelis and Palestinians benefit from the Middle East’s growing wealth.

We started this war rashly, but we must end our involvement responsibly. And end it we must. The alternative is a fear-driven policy paralysis that perpetuates the war - to America’s historic detriment.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. His most recent book is “Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower.”

</code></pre>

mini · May 29, 2008, 4:36pm

“Back on point…we are there, now we need to figure out how to clean the spilt milk up.”

When child break something in another person’s store, you don’t ask the child to figure out how to glue it together. You take him outside, perhaps berate him for his folly, and make arrangements for SOMEONE else to fix it, paying for it out of the child’s allowance.

“Saddam killed over 180,000 Kurds, many died from chemical weapons. He invaded Kuwait. He stole Billions from his people for his personal gain from the Food for Oil program (remember the 18 wheeler), while his citizens lived with no food. He held civilians as shields. He killed the father of his grandchildren.”

Got it. Less than 1/5th the number of people killed by Bill Clinton, and less than 1/10th the number of children.

“As far as a permanent base created from Gulf II, hate to break it to you…the military never totally left Saudi Arabia since 91(I am not sure of the exact number, but we still have military members stationed there).”

Hate to break it to you, but the last American combat troops left Saudi Arabia on September 21, 2003, having been kicked out.

[THE</a> STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ; Last American Combat Troops Quit Saudi Arabia - New York Times](<a href=“http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDB1E3AF931A1575AC0A9659C8B63]THE”>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDB1E3AF931A1575AC0A9659C8B63)

Religious leaders there have held to the same opinion as moderate Ayatollah Sistani does in Iraq: to give a glass of water to one of the aggressive, hostile occupiers is a sin, and strictly forbidden.

bulletandpima · May 29, 2008, 9:22pm

Mini notice I said military not combat…2 different creatures. We still have AD members in Saudi training the Saudi pilots. These servicemember are there for 1 yr remotes…so yes combat troops are gone, but the military is still there (I believe the released number is approx. 400) and we are paying American tax dollars to train the Saudis how to fly a jet we sold to them. I am pretty sure our diplomatic relationship is still in tact.

You also cut out a big part of my statement where I state ** we have had a military staging area for decades in the Middle East**…we don’t need Saudi Arabia anymore, and they don’t want us. Yet it is not like they said get the heck out of my house, I never want to speak to you again!

BedHead · May 29, 2008, 9:35pm

Well, getting back to the matter of McClellan, here are a couple of interesting posts:

[Scott</a> McClellan comes clean | Salon](<a href=“http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/30/scott_mcclellan_press_secretary/]Scott”>http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/30/scott_mcclellan_press_secretary/)

[In</a> defense of Scott McClellan - War Room - Salon.com](<a href=“http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/29/mcclellan_publisher/index.html]In”>http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/29/mcclellan_publisher/index.html)

As someone has pointed out, there is not much here in what McClellan said in his book that should be of surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

What I really don’t get is that the White House apparently thinks if McClellan had misgivings he should have raised them. That is the defense they are using. He should have come forward, they say. What do they think he would have said, “I’ve discovered that everybody here is using trumped up information and, Mr. President, I think you are taking people on wildly dangerous path”? As if that might have altered anything? What they should be saying is that McClellan should have quit the Administration in protest, if he had doubts about the enterprise he was party to.

The other funny one the WH is using is that they are “puzzled” that he is “disgruntled” and that “this isn’t the Scott they knew” implying essentially that he’s gone off the deep end. How many people can they say this about?

I guess I am inclined to give the guy some credence that his view of things evolved.

I can see why K. Couric implies he’s a hypocrite, though:

[McClellan:</a> I’m “Intrigued” By Obama, Ex-WH Press Secretary Tells CBS News Obama’s Message Is Like Bush’s In 2000 - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/29/eveningnews/main4136895.shtml]McClellan:”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/29/eveningnews/main4136895.shtml)

And, hey, McClellan’s mommy still loves him: ;)

[McClellan’s</a> mom says she’s proud of her son for writing book | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle](<a href=“http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5808374.html]McClellan’s”>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5808374.html)

bulletandpima · May 29, 2008, 9:47pm

I personally couldn’t care left or right whether he has now seen the light! I see him as someone peddling a book. He is not in for the truth, he is in it for the bucks. He wants everyone to believe that he was so immersed he couldn’t see the forest for the trees, but now he can see because he walked away.

This leaves me with a couple of questions:

If Bush only hires Morons who can’t think for themselves, then why is anyone buying a book from the moron?
If he is not a moron and can think for himself, why did he stay for 6 yrs, and wait over 2 yrs to publish a book?
Finally does anyone believe he has altruistic intentions by writing this, as he now spews on the media circuit?

BedHead · May 29, 2008, 9:54pm

Well, I think what you’re really responding to is the fact that McClellan is pulling back the curtain (which, if you have any sense at all, you’d admit was pretty well askance already) from the mechanism that Bush-Wizard of Oz has used throughout his presidency.

The question is not ultimately whether one believes he has altruistic motives, but the question is whether one thinks he is lying about the things he points out. On balance, about the things he talks about many of which are basically corroborated or basically common sense, I find him credible.

He is now telling truth. And I think that’s what sticks in your craw. You’ve already described your very heavy emotional investment in believing something other than that Bush conned our nation into fighting a war that really hasn’t been worth its cost.

Is he going to profit on the way to disclosing truth? Well, good for him. Even if we was one of the scumbags that was keeping the wizard well hidden behind that curtain for so long. I’d rather have some of this come out now rather than 2 more years from now. Maybe it’ll cause some people to face up to some bitter truths. And maybe that’ll help our nation begin to move on to getting itself out of the hole that it finds itself in.

bulletandpima · May 29, 2008, 10:09pm

This is where we must part…will I someday get the book form the library? Maybe, but doubtful.

I am for the truth I just have an issue with someone making money after feeding me a line of bull***t to reward him financially. If his book is truthful now, and everything else before was lies…I will not support him by buying the book on ethical principles

poetsheart · May 30, 2008, 12:36am

I don’t give a rat’s ass about his “motives”. If he’s telling the truth, and that truth confirms what many of us have long suspected, the identity of the messenger is of little importance. Acknowledging the truth, making decisions based upon a clear-eyed assessment of the truth, is always the responsible thing to do, especially when the lives of our people are at stake. Decisions based on self-delusion, and hubris are always are recipe for disaster. We haven’t had responsible Presidential leadership where Iraq is concerned, in a very long time, going back as far as Bill Clinton, it would seem.

LongPrime · May 30, 2008, 1:00am

Perhaps its Mc’s way to find a way out for those who have or will soon be on the street in this failed administration. Its been a good run but time to find a plausible exit strategy.

Hanna · May 30, 2008, 10:41am

“What they should be saying is that McClellan should have quit the Administration in protest, if he had doubts about the enterprise he was party to.”

Right. He should have revealed all of this back then, and he’s a self-interested coward for not doing so. But that doesn’t mean he’s lying now.

Former White House Press Secretary Blasts Bush

CONNECT WITH US