QUOTE
Scott McClellan writes in his book WHAT HAPPENED Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong with Washington:
"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
There was one problem. It was not true.
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."
http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaf...mp;view=excerpt
"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
There was one problem. It was not true.
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."
http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaf...mp;view=excerpt
This is a small but powerful excerpt from McClellan's new book concerning the Yellowcake/Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson dustup. If there is any truth to what he is saying, the implications could be huge. The faulty yellowcake intelligence was inserted into Bush's 2003 State of the Union address as he made the case for war with Iraq. It ultimately resulted in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, the conviction of Scooter Libby on obstruction of justice charges, and Bush's subsequent commuting of his sentence.
There is also a fascinating episode of PBS' Frontline that investigates the events leading up to the Iraq War. The relevant excerpts would be too numerous to fit here, so I highly recommend that you watch the episode online. Basically, they make a compelling case that the intelligence used to justify the invasion was colored to overstate the threat that Iraq posed. The following link is to a full transcript of the show:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/da...etc/script.html
To me, it's pretty clear that this administration has been caught in a number of lies - but not everybody agrees with that. So the questions for debate are:
Did the Bush administration intentionally mislead America into the Iraq war? And if so, was Cheney the one we should be blaming, and not Bush?
I am sure that the Rovian style spin machine wil have to work overtime, as yet another member of the regime comes forward with this regimes corruption and wrong doing, to smear McClellan.
I find McClellan to be a very reliable source on this, and I am sure he is telling the truth.
I find McClellan to be a very reliable source on this, and I am sure he is telling the truth.
QUOTE
"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
<snip>
"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration "were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."
<snip>
"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration "were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1003675070
Here are the exact words from the teaser of the McClellan book.
Bush had already lost credibility over the issue of WMD. McClellan’s statement in the teaser was limited to the Valerie Plame incident, not the war itself.
Ari Fletcher was press secretary during the run up to and at the beginning of the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Press_Secretary
But yes, I believe Bush lied us into Iraq and also had a hand or at least knowledge about the outing of Plame. At some point in his tenure, I would venture that McClellan was led to lie about a lot of things, some he probably doesn’t even know about.
QUOTE
There is also a fascinating episode of PBS' Frontline that investigates the events leading up to the Iraq War. The relevant excerpts would be too numerous to fit here, so I highly recommend that you watch the episode online. Basically, they make a compelling case that the intelligence used to justify the invasion was colored to overstate the threat that Iraq posed. The following link is to a full transcript of the show:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/da...etc/script.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/da...etc/script.html
Come on give us a break. Plame sent her husband there for political reason and lied later about it and Libby did not “out” her as we know. The Brits still support the yellow cake connection and in any case this was a very minor point in the reasons for war and you know it. UN 1441 did not mention this and was very specific and Iraq did not comply as they had not for the past 11 years.
As for “color” the intel – do we really need to look again at all the Dem statements after Bill bombed in 1998 – or the CIA data, or the Butler statements, or the Blix statements, or Ritter’s testimony to Congress or………………………..
So it is your position that McClellan is lying? 
QUOTE
Did the Bush administration intentionally mislead America into the Iraq war? And if so, was Cheney the one we should be blaming, and not Bush?
There is definitely culpability in the White House. To what degree Bush was complicit is the matter of speculation, not whether he was, unless his supporters want to admit that he was acting with his gut and had his brain in neutral.
The man who admits to not liking to read books did not bother to get a National Intelligence Estimate. He was riding the crest of the wave we call outrage over 9/11, and it most assuredly felt good to him. He did not pay attention to the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) which said that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike within the United States.
The Republican Party's platform of 2000 listed among its aspirations to depose Saddam Hussein. Iraqi oil was supposed to compensate for the money expended in this venture. It probably looked elegant: "W" would have his revenge on the rascals who "tried to kill my dad," the U.S. would have control of Iraqi oil, we would have a strategic presence in the region, George W. Bush would be regarded as a wartime statesman par excellence and, oh yes, we would be liberating those poor Iraqis from torture, rape rooms, etc., etc. (a worthy goal that, if not foremost or even secondary on the list of reasons to invade, would strike the right altruistic note for those reluctant to do so for the other reasons).
And what a wonderful recovery for the man who was caught flat-footed on the morning of the attacks, reading The Pet Duck along with elementary school children as the second plane flew into the WTC and Washington D.C. went on alert. On the other hand, Dick Cheney was sitting in the office functioning as the President, getting reports and giving orders. According to Richard A. Clarke (author of Against All Enemies), he seemed to be right in his element. It was a good thing somebody was.
Richard Cheney is more of a thinker than George W. Bush. However, he possesses less charisma, and he doesn't have the Bush name. It is very attractive to see him as the schemer instead of his boss who presents himself as leader of the free world. It might be that Dennis Kucinich is right calling for Cheney's impeachment rather than W's in that Cheney has at least demonstrated the mental capacity to form plans and execute them.
But I don't see President Bush, Jr. as an innocent in all this.
I think Scott McClellan is just the latest to be telling tales outside of school since his exit from the Bush administration. The odds say that somebody is bound to be telling the truth.
QUOTE
The man who admits to not liking to read books did not bother to get a National Intelligence Estimate. He was riding the crest of the wave we call outrage over 9/11, and it most assuredly felt good to him. He did not pay attention to the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) which said that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike within the United States.
The Republican Party's platform of 2000 listed among its aspirations to depose Saddam Hussein. Iraqi oil was supposed to compensate for the money expended in this venture.
The Republican Party's platform of 2000 listed among its aspirations to depose Saddam Hussein. Iraqi oil was supposed to compensate for the money expended in this venture.
You lost me here PE. First its clear the NIE said Iraq maintained stockpiles of WMD just as Clinton suspected (and why he bombed) and just as numerous Dems testified to as well as former inspectors.
So clarify what you are saying here. The intel available was about what we had in 1998. Bush got the inspectors back in and a new (never complied with) Resolution at UN but Blix did not put to bed any of the missing WMD questions as you can clearly see by reading his testimony top the UN.
As far as “paying for the war with oil”. You have to be joking – please show me something on this myth.
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 30 2007, 12:32 PM) 
As far as “paying for the war with oil”. You have to be joking – please show me something on this myth.
Paladin remembers right. It was actually Paul Wolfowitz that made that statement:
QUOTE
On March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq war, told a Congressional panel that oil would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. According to his testimony "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but … We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”[74][75][4] By March 2005, two years later, oil revenues were not paying for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, Wolfowitz's estimation of 50 to 100 billion US dollars had not materialized, and, in light of his miscalculation, detractors criticized his appointment to head of the World Bank.[76]
While Wolfowitz was talking specifically about reconstruction, "paying for the war" was a reasonable (mis)interpretation of what he was saying, since the administration's cost estimates at the time were in that same ballpark:
QUOTE
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence Lindsey, head of the White House’s National Economic Council, says he believes the Bush administration’s planned invasion of Iraq could cost between $100 and $200 billion. But he dismisses that such spending would significantly increase interest rates, add much to the federal debt, or cause a recession. “One year [of additional spending?] That’s nothing.” Mitch Daniels, director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently disputes the figure, saying it is “very, very high.” He suggests the total costs would run between $50-$60 billion. [Wall Street Journal, 9/16/2002; Reuters, 9/18/2002; Washington Times, 5/13/2005]
If they really believed those numbers, I suspect that they were planning on reimbursing themselves with some of that oil.
While Wolfowitz was talking specifically about reconstruction, "paying for the war" was a reasonable (mis)interpretation of what he was saying, since the administration's cost estimates at the time were in that same ballpark:
Yes an common and wrong interpretation – as I said. "Reasonable" is debatable.
Yes an common and wrong interpretation – as I said. "Reasonable" is debatable.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.