Bush's former press secretary says Bush misled U.S. on Iraq

[70Chip]

Any Republican President that employs someone named Mclellan is obviously asking for trouble. The name itself is synonimous with weakness and disloyalty. If I were President, and someone came to me and said, "Sir, we want to promote McClellan", I would say, "Good Lord ,Man read your history".

George B. McClellan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[saden1]

Interesting, what about employing someone with the name McCain as president?

Cain and Abel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[The Goat]

I know the McClellan book is causing a big stir. I've not read it and probably won't beyond the excerpts seen and heard on tv and radio, but I don't feel his criticism is as warranted as that from Paul O'neill or Richard Clark. For one thing I doubt McClellan sat in on cabinet level meetings where the real dirt gets mixed. Part of what made O'neill's confession so scathing is that he discussed the idiocy witnessed in cabinet meetings... the pres would agree that letting the federal budget fall back into massive deficit was totally unacceptable but at the next meeting (after vp "deficits don't matter" cheney and karl "i don't give an f about responsible public policy" rove had worked the pres over) the story would be completely different.

That said, i understand McClellan is one pissed off mo-fo. I wouldn't take a million dollar cash payment to associate w/ a single person in the admin and would probably put a bullet in my brain before I'd defend policy and appointments from the past 8 years. Bottom line is his job sucked and now he wants revenge... can ya really blame him.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This right here is why I feel that GW2 is a rather unremarkable president.

Lots of the decisions he made, that people hound him for, seemed to be decisions of circumstance. A better man perhaps would have gone beyond the status quo, and made the less fundamental decision and would have produced better results, but GW pretty much was the run-of-the-mill decision maker.

We've seen better, we've seen worse, and we will probably have worse in the future. That's my official position on the Bush Administration.

What B's GW has gone against the grain and the media for a ton of things that have brought his ratings down just because he thought it was protecting the US. Do I really need to start naming them. There everyday in the news for the past 6 years or so.

[dblanch66]

Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Whig, Tory...doesn't matter. Bush sucks as a president. I don't care how much of a "good guy" he is, he was our worst president besides Hoover. I'd rather have a president who's an asshole as long as he or she knows how to run the country with forsight, intelligence, tact, diplomacy, creativity, toughness, open mindedness and humility. None of which George Bush possesses.

[dmek25]

dblanch, tell us how you really feel? i agree with what you said. but you usually steer clear of political discussions

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

McClellan has some kind words for Bush, calling him "a man of personal charm, wit and enormous political skill." He writes that the president "did not consciously set out to engage in these destructive practices. But like others before him, he chose to play the Washington game the way he found it, rather than changing the culture as he vowed to do at the outset of his campaign for the presidency."

This seems to be the case with many elected officials. Let's see if that changes with the next President.

I won't hold my breath.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Whig, Tory...doesn't matter. Bush sucks as a president. I don't care how much of a "good guy" he is, he was our worst president besides Hoover. I'd rather have a president who's an asshole as long as he or she knows how to run the country with forsight, intelligence, tact, diplomacy, creativity, toughness, open mindedness and humility. None of which George Bush possesses.

I wasn't alive for Hoover but I was for Jimmy Carter and all the adults around me were ready to revolt if he had been reelected. There's no way he would have survived a second term. He was positively reviled. Also, Bush will not face an impeachment hearing which is something Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson couldn't say. In addition, James Buchanan, who was an homosexual, allowed the country to slip to the brink of civil war, so your history is off.

[70Chip]

Christopher Hitchens weighs in:

If you want to read a serious book about the intervention in Iraq, try War and Decision. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I wasn't alive for Hoover but I was for Jimmy Carter and all the adults around me were ready to revolt if he had been reelected. There's no way he would have survived a second term. He was positively reviled. Also, Bush will not face an impeachment hearing which is something Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson couldn't say. In addition, James Buchanan, who was an homosexual, allowed the country to slip to the brink of civil war, so your history is off.

Everything I heard and read about Carter indicates he was pretty awful, and has only made things worse over the years. Maybe he should have just stuck with Habitat for Humanity

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/v...10824?page=all

Buchanan is interesting, because his worst crime (apart from apparently being pro-slavery) is that he really did nothing because he felt (I think correctly) that constitutionally he didn't have the power to do anything (in regards to secession). Today, we complain when a President invokes executive power and takes action, but we could have avoided a major civil war had Buchanan (and Pierce) done such a thing over 150 years ago. (I mean I believe Lincoln did so during the Civil War) Then again, it may have made no difference.

As for the homosexual part. I never knew that was actually proven. I've only heard it speculated. Secondly, what does it matter? What was the point of even throwing that comment in there?

[redsk1]

This just in: The gov't uses propaganda to "sell" a war. Amazing. Have we ever fought a war where there was no propaganda?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Everything I heard and read about Carter indicates he was pretty awful, and has only made things worse over the years. Maybe he should have just stuck with Habitat for Humanity

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/v...10824?page=all

Buchanan is interesting, because his worst crime (apart from apparently being pro-slavery) is that he really did nothing because he felt (I think correctly) that constitutionally he didn't have the power to do anything (in regards to secession). Today, we complain when a President invokes executive power and takes action, but we could have avoided a major civil war had Buchanan (and Pierce) done such a thing over 150 years ago. (I mean I believe Lincoln did so during the Civil War) Then again, it may have made no difference.

Despite how we view Honest Abe we can trace the socialization of our republic back to his decisions. Up until the Civil war our country operated much differently and more within the ideals of the founding fathers in terms of limited national government. After the war our country became much more nationalistic and states rights have been eroding ever since.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Despite how we view Honest Abe we can trace the socialization of our republic back to his decisions. Up until the Civil war our country operated much differently and more within the ideals of the founding fathers in terms of limited national government. After the war our country became much more nationalistic and states rights have been eroding ever since.

FDR had a big part in that too

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by redsk1

This just in: The gov't uses propaganda to "sell" a war. Amazing. Have we ever fought a war where there was no propaganda?

I'd say when the Japanes attacked us at Pearl Harbor that was propaganda enough.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'd say when the Japanes attacked us at Pearl Harbor that was propaganda enough.

Thats why we sent most of our troops to Europe...