Questions for Scott McClellan
If former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan were over 70, we might consider him for the Jimmy. With the upcoming release of his book, it seems he has learned something that he never seemed to master while in the White House, how to garner favorable press attention. It’s simple really. All you need do is attack George W. Bush, his team and his supporters.
In this book, McClellan apparently emerges for a stance during his White House tenure which Bill Kristol defined as a “defensive crouch” to go on offense against his former Administration colleagues.
With this offense, I have some questions for McClellan:
According to Mike Allen, you fault the president for his “failure to be open and forthright on Iraq.” I agree he should have been more forthcoming on Iraq. But, Scott, you were press secretary, did you press the president to do so? Wasn’t that your job?
Then, you go on to call the war a “serious strategic blunder,” contending it “was not necessary.” When did you come to that conclusion? If you came to that conclusion while working at the White House, why didn’t you resign? Or at least share these doubts with the president and your colleagues?
You fault the Administration for its “excessive embrace of the permanent campaign approach to governance,” yet claim that you were “outside” the walls the president’s team “built against the media,” indciating you were not part of any White House inner circle. Wouldn’t an Administration engaged in a permanent campaign want to keep the press secretary in the loop so as to better get its message out?
I’m eager to hear your answers to these questions and wonder why you have so completely embraced the rhetoric of the president’s “liberal critics.” Are you looking for the MSM to provide you your next job?
I mean, now that you have offered red meat for the Bush-hating crowd, I’m guessing this book will put the kibosh on the rumors about you circulating on left-wing web-sites.
48 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Oh goody. A GOP attack-the-messenger feeding frenzy. Scott just told us what we already knew about Bush and company. Took long enough.
Comment by Houndentenor — May 28, 2008 @ 12:10 pm - May 28, 2008
Thank you for demonstrating the point, Houndentenor; as long as it’s anti-Bush, no matter how many years you previously spent calling the person saying it a liar, it must be true.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2008 @ 12:16 pm - May 28, 2008
LOL. I knew it wouldn’t take long for this to appear. Seems anyone who offers even a glimpse at the truth of what’s going on with/around Bush and the members of his administration is immediately up for vilification. Can only imagine what you’d do if Colin Powell told his real story.
Comment by Kevin — May 28, 2008 @ 12:44 pm - May 28, 2008
Apparently young Mr. McClellan decided a book certain to be heavily promoted by the mainstream media was easier than having to work for a living. (And a former White House colleague, noting how unlike McClellan the book sounds, wondered if McClellan put his name on a book written by someone else.)
Karl Rove very effectively disputed McClellan’s claim that a specific meeting between Rove and Scooter Libby dealt with the Vallerie Plame incident. (Rove and Libby met almost daily because of their roles in the White House and McClellan would have no idea what the two might be discussing.)
I was never impressed with McClellan. He was a very ineffective Press Secretary whose poor job as spokesman for the Bush Administration came at a critical time in the administration’s tenure and seriously damaged the administration. I was surprised it took so long to ease him out of the White House so he could be replaced by an articulate and effective spokesman.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 28, 2008 @ 12:45 pm - May 28, 2008
McClellan is bitter that his political career is over, ended by his years of shilling for the Bush Administration. Like the rest of the central cast of characters in the administration, he has no future in politics. The Republicans as a party will one day find their way again, but for them, the central cast, they’ll be no rehabilitation. He’s forever branded with the political equivalent of Hester Prine’s scarlet “A.” The American people will never forget, nor forgive. An 11th hour mea culpa will not change his past. I have no sympathy for him.
Comment by Erik — May 28, 2008 @ 1:07 pm - May 28, 2008
#4 - Trace has it exactly right. The fact is that it’s clear now that McClellan was not just a bumbling idiot. He was against this war and he’s probably the main reason for the public turning against it.
Ari Fleischer would have been the one who knew about all of the lead-up to the war. McClellan didn’t come in until after the war started. Interestingly enough, Fleischer was able to articulate the President’s position just fine. So was Tony Snow - who came after McClellan.
It’s so clear now why everything went so bad, and McClellan’s “revelation” is anything but. It was bad enough when I just thought he was incompetent but I believe he was actually sabotaging the White House’s efforts during the war. That should be the big news.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 28, 2008 @ 1:23 pm - May 28, 2008
I agree with NDT: The glory and beauty of the McClellan spectacle is seeing the people who used to call him a liar turn on a dime - now that he is telling them what they want to hear.
The ugly side of the McClellan spectacle, of course, is seeing poor Scott sell his soul - An old, sad story.
GPW, you did a great job pointing out McClellan’s gross contradictions (that his new liberal buddies gloss over). Wasn’t it McClellan’s *whole job* to be open and forthcoming about Iraq? If - note IF - Bush wasn’t, then isn’t McClellan now blaming Bush for *McClellan’s own* failures? ROFL
And if McClellan didn’t like the war and couldn’t do a good job in good conscience, why didn’t he resign?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 28, 2008 @ 1:29 pm - May 28, 2008
I wish the America haters like Kevin and Hounden showed as much viceral hatred toward our enemies as they toward our country but instead since they’re brainwashed bitter Leftists that day will never come.
Comment by Vince P — May 28, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - May 28, 2008
There was a time that if you turned against your leader History found you hung from a tree branch with thirty pieces of silver at your feet; now it’s a lucrative book-deal and a Press-Op tour. What a toad….
I may be old-fashioned, but I expect “…once-bought, to stay bought”.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 28, 2008 @ 2:20 pm - May 28, 2008
$29.95 a copy
Comment by American Elephant — May 28, 2008 @ 2:35 pm - May 28, 2008
I’m no fan of Bush by any stretch of the imagination, but I had the same reaction as GPW’s questions. Why didn’t he resign if he disagreed so much? Wasn’t he one of the inner circle who is supposed to be in the loop? Isn’t that critical to being an effective press secretary?
Unfortunately, this is just more politics as usual (it happens to be a Republican this time, but the Dems are just as guilty of this kind of crap).
Comment by Mike — May 28, 2008 @ 2:57 pm - May 28, 2008
I love how he claims the adminstration was simultaneously diabolically manipulating the public and an incompetent administration being “controlled by events.”
It must be pure coincidence that the book appears to address every left-wing accusation like he were checking off a shopping list. He even gets in a non-accusation about cocaine use.
Funny how the only press secretary who was fired is also the only one who makes these claims.
I hope the book is printed on glossy pages because millions of mouth-breathing mindless MoveOn.org lemmings like kevin and houndentenor will be masturbating over it for months.
Comment by American Elephant — May 28, 2008 @ 3:01 pm - May 28, 2008
Michelle Malkin has posted a quote of McClellan’s from this time four years ago… very inconvenient:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 28, 2008 @ 3:53 pm - May 28, 2008
#12: Thanks AE - that wasn’t a mental image I needed today.
Comment by Mike — May 28, 2008 @ 3:55 pm - May 28, 2008
Anytime, Mike.
Hilarious quote @ ILC
Comment by American Elephant — May 28, 2008 @ 4:45 pm - May 28, 2008
#1 & #3
Where’s all the “Tell-All” books written by Lord BJ’s staffers?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 28, 2008 @ 5:02 pm - May 28, 2008
#16 - They’re afraid of Arkancide or being left alone in Ft. Marcie Park.
Plus, anytime a tell-all book is written (i.e. the one by the NYT correspondent), the MSM refuses to cover it.
Of course, now that Clinton may be out of the running (and again, I caution everyone that there will be a floor fight in Denver), and if the pundits think that she’s been de-fanged, the floodgates may be opened.
With the Clintons, one never knows.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 28, 2008 @ 5:10 pm - May 28, 2008
lol @American Elephant. So ironic that you would be attacking anyone for being “mindless”. You are/were a Bush-war supporter?
It is obvious that the people who are hate filled and delusional will remain so regardless of the truth.
Try to find some peace some where in your soul.
Comment by MsA — May 28, 2008 @ 5:21 pm - May 28, 2008
That describes the Left well. Angry, cowardly, selfish, petty.
Comment by Vince P — May 28, 2008 @ 5:35 pm - May 28, 2008
A question for all the Lefties posting here: How many lies will McClellan have to be busted in, for y’all to fall out of love with him?
Comment by DaveP. — May 28, 2008 @ 6:45 pm - May 28, 2008
You say:
“I agree he should have been more forthcoming on Iraq. But, Scott, you were press secretary, did you press the president to do so? Wasn’t that your job?”
Completely incorrect. The press secretary serves at the pleasure of the president. His job is communicate the stated goals and policies of the president, whatever those may be. He does not have an oversight position. He does not stand guard over the presidency for any other group of people (that’s why we have the OSC and various Congressional investigative bodies). If he completely disagreed with what the president was doing, then he should have left. Which he did, I imagine, once he saw just how deeply dysfunctional this administration was.
You say:
“You fault the Administration for its “excessive embrace of the permanent campaign approach to governance,” yet claim that you were “outside” the walls the president’s team “built against the media,” indciating you were not part of any White House inner circle. Wouldn’t an Administration engaged in a permanent campaign want to keep the press secretary in the loop so as to better get its message out?”
You seem to be confusing propaganda with reality. As you mention, it is the press secretary’s job to espouse the president’s “message.” Normally, this message has some connection with reality. This, of course, is not the case with the Bush Administration. They have repeatedly shown themselves to be comfortable with flat out lies if it gets them where they want to be. Thus, there’s no need to inform the press secretary of the real situation. No need to show him the real intelligence, the real conversations that went on behind the scenes. Just shovel him the same BS they shovel everyone else.
Comment by Dan — May 28, 2008 @ 8:16 pm - May 28, 2008
Bullshit. Telling shameless lies is a Democrat Core Value.
Comment by Vince P — May 28, 2008 @ 9:20 pm - May 28, 2008
The Bush Administration is nearly seven and a half years long. So if “they have repeatedly shown themselves to be comfortable with flat out lies” you should have not the slightest difficulty listing just 10 of the really big ones.
Make way for Dan and his Big 10 Bush administration lies.
Big lie #1:
Big lie #2:
Big lie #3:
Big lie #4:
Big lie #5:
Big lie #6:
Big lie #7:
Big lie #8:
Big lie #9:
Big lie #10:
Comment by heliotrope — May 28, 2008 @ 9:58 pm - May 28, 2008
republicans eating their own. how appropriate.
McClellan is/was a tool, but this just adds to the confirmation of the illegitimate and degenerate bushco war machine.
WORST PRESIDENT EVER
Comment by rightiswrong — May 28, 2008 @ 11:26 pm - May 28, 2008
You know what’s funny.. all the people who worked in the Clinton White House, especially Secret Service and FBI agents and wrote books.. they never got any publicity.
And then for what’s boring… rightiswrong’s regurgation of the same whining we’ve heard for years. talk about a tool
Comment by Vince P — May 28, 2008 @ 11:44 pm - May 28, 2008
#1: We Will Withdraw From Iraq If Asked.
#2: Iraq Presents An Imminent Threat/Has WMDs.
#3: There is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
#4: We could not have anticipated the devastation of Katrina.
#5: Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
I can keep going… but it’s bed time. How’re things on the Titanic? All things full speed? Good.
Comment by Dan — May 29, 2008 @ 1:52 am - May 29, 2008
#26
Says the guy who believes:
*Support for Bush equals support for dragging black men to their death.
*Bush created wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes etc.
*Bush wanted to destroy Socialist Stupidity
*Bush wanted to steal from our 401(k)s.
*Higher taxes equals higher revenues
*”Fake, but accurate” military records
*A Koran can be flushed down a toilet
*Abu Ghraib was worth frontpage news for 40+ days
*Club Gitmo is worse than a Turkish prison
*Saddam Hussein calling for terrorist attacks on US interests, attacking US and British fighters, paying the families of suicide bombers, training terrorist groups etc. is no threat to us
*Ahmidinijad only wants to build “peaceful nuclear power”, despite the fact that nobody in Europe or Israel thinks so
*Joe Wilson told the truth and didn’t out his wife himself
I could go on, but your regurgitation of proven Bullshit is getting boring.
Well, they’re still telling Florida and Michigan voters to go screw themselves. Plus Hillary’s still in the race, so, yeah, it is full speed ahead apparently.
Talk about voter supression.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 29, 2008 @ 3:02 am - May 29, 2008
#12: Actually, AE, I have to disagree with your vivid description of what “millions of mouth-breathing mindless MoveOn.org lemmings” have planned for this book. It’s no surprise that the liberal press is going hog wild over McClellan’s “bombshell” tell-all because they go hog wild over anyone who says anything VERBALLY that is critical of and/or embarrasses the White House. But think about it, who is actually going to go into a store and buy this book? Obviously, not conservatives. So that leaves McClellan with one market: liberals. And I’m sure he thinks burning every bridge he had in Washington was worth it if it sells a lot of books. But again, I ask, who is going to buy this book? Every liberal website is ablaze with quotations, summarizing all of the most shocking revelations with unmitigated glee. But none of these bloggers or journalists have read the book or plan to. This book won’t sell because as far as liberals are concerned, it just validates everything they ALREADY KNOW. They already KNOW Bush lied about Iraq. They already KNOW the Bush White House is corrupt and incompetent. They already KNOW Cheney is Satan. They already KNOW Rove and Libby colluded on the Plame “scandal”–why would they buy a book to read about McClellan witnessing Rove and Libby going into an office and closing the door behind them? How is anything in this book that McClellan speculates about any different from what liberals HAVE ALREADY CONCLUDED ANYWAY.
McClellan is in for a rude awakening. The liberal press is fawning all over him and he pathetically thinks it’s because of “the book.” But it’s not. They’re fawning all over him because he WROTE the book. They don’t give a damn about reading it or what’s actually in it. Houndentenor and Kevin are tickled-pink about this book, but they’re not going to buy it, much less read it. And that’s McClellan’s target demographic. Would you feel confident pinning all of your hopes for success and survival (while fu*king over all of your friends/colleagues in the process) on people like KEVIN? Seriously. KEVIN.
Comment by Sean A — May 29, 2008 @ 3:36 am - May 29, 2008
The Publishing Company of this book has funding ties to George Soros.
Comment by Vince P — May 29, 2008 @ 3:48 am - May 29, 2008
Oh, and Kevin never answers questions. he just copy and pastes from his “I’m a Brainless Hating Leftist” cliche generator.
Comment by Vince P — May 29, 2008 @ 3:50 am - May 29, 2008
Dan, I think you misunderstood heliotrope’s question. He asked for LIES, told by President BUSH. You’ve mixed truths told by President Bush with lies told by Democrats. Let’s review.
#1 - True.
#2 - A lie of DEMOCRATS. Senator Rockefeller (Democrat) was the one going around saying Saddam would have WMD stockpiles. Bush and Blair specifically said that Saddam was not, repeat NOT, an imminent threat.
#3 - Depends what connection you mean. Saddam was a supporter of many kinds of international terrorism. Bush said that. He never said Saddam was involved in 9-11 directly; only Democrats have said that (perhaps as a straw man).
#4 - What does this even mean? Nagin and Bianco, both Democrats, told Bush to NOT declare a state of emergency.
#5 - True (and I hope you never have to find out).
So Dan, work on those reading comprehension skills. heliotrope asked you for BUSH LIES. OK? Not a third-grader’s mixture of Bush truths / Democrat lies.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 29, 2008 @ 10:33 am - May 29, 2008
#26: Gee thanks! I thought you might have been able to spin off dozens and dozens of lies and worn yourself out. But I love the five you listed. They are all so…..so….so….so…..well,…….so…..well repeated. Not proven, just repeated.
Sadr , Al Qaeda and the Democrats have asked us to withdraw and, Ta Da, we haven’t done it. When the democratic government of Iran asks us to withdraw, we will withdraw. Ergo: no lie.
Saddam Hussein was openly funding suicide bombers, providing safe haven for terrorists, ignoring the endless UN Resolutions to behave and on the best information gathered by the Clinton administration over 8 years, had WMD’s. He was given the choice to cooperate with the War on Terrorism and obey the UN Resolutions or be toppled. The rest is history.
9/11 was the cause of the War on Terrorism. If Bush ever tied the events of 9/11 to Iraq, I have never seen nor heard it. Can you cite it? (Of course not. This is a very tired KOS kids fairy tail.) The connection between 9/11 and Iraq is revealed above.
Who didn’t anticipate the devastation of Katrina? Mississippi and Alabama took the FEMA help in advance and they threw themselves right into the reconstruction. All the non English speaking minorities in New Orleans were smart enough to leave in advance. School Bus Nagin sat on his evacuation plan and let the buses flood. Amtrack offered extra trains for evacuation and when they were not answered, they got their equipment out of New Orleans. Bush called the governor and the mayor well into the night offereing the FEMA and military help. They decided to wait and see. The President can not overstep the state and local governments if no disaster exists. The disaster was the blind politics of the the Mayor and the Governor. Nice try, but no cigar.
Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. Oh. So….how…do…you…know? Jimmy Carter send you a candygram or something? It will be so funny, funny, funny when Iran finally shows the world that it has been deep underground making jelly beans.
Good thing you went to bed, pal, because your brain must have been really taxed with these old hatebushpoints.
A lie is when a person knows the truth and willingly tells the lie instead. Little lies are like when Hillary ran from the sniper fire after landing in the war zone or having some mysterious appearance by the Rose Law Firm billing records in the White House solarium. Or Obama’s growing list of familiy (white side) memories. Big lies are things like: ‘I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski,…….”
I want to make this all so much easier for you. Give me just ONE lie that Bush told. One that you can clearly prove. C’mon, show the sucker up for what you say he is. I can’t get the bar any lower.
Comment by heliotrope — May 29, 2008 @ 10:45 am - May 29, 2008
This was the Bush Administration position in 2002, running up to the war:
But, I must admit, that is not an actual Bush quote. It’s a quote from Barack Hussein Obama. You know… that genius. Was Obama also a liar? LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 29, 2008 @ 11:07 am - May 29, 2008
ROFL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 29, 2008 @ 11:24 am - May 29, 2008
There were plenty of Clinton tell-alls that describe straight out treason by Clinton The Elder. These were big yawners as I recall. The PR is the difference even if we gloss over the relative supporting facts. I haven’t seen that McClellan has revealed any. He speaks of “lies”. Again, let’s have us a quote or two, may we? I’m baffled by Q#1 from above. The Iraqi legislature has voted to endorse the American presence in Iraq, what, three times or so? Just who is asking us to leave? Are we really talking about Sadr, Badr and the others Michael Moore declares to be Minutemen? The mullahs of Iran also demand we leave. Are our interests and theirs aligned in some way? How?
Comment by megapotamus — May 29, 2008 @ 1:01 pm - May 29, 2008
Oh, and on Saddam/9-11, three terms for Googling (or Dogpiling, much better)
Salman Pak
Ramzi Yousef
Harold Baer
Go and learn…
Comment by megapotamus — May 29, 2008 @ 1:03 pm - May 29, 2008
Doug Feith who worked in the Pentagon to develop the Iraq policy has put many government documents on teh website for the book he wrote. These are documents that state the policy the government was working through.
http://www.waranddecision.com/docLib/20080403_RumsfeldmemoIraq.pdf
This is one of the first documents from the Bush admin. It’s from 27 Jul 2001 from Rumsfeld to Rice, Cheney , Powell
I recommend we have a Principals Committee meeting on Iraq, to be followed by a National Security Council meeting.
Background
We have discussed Iraq on a number of occasions. The discussions have been
inconclusive. Several things have evolved in the intervening period:
- Sanctions are being limited in a way that cannot weaken Saddam Hussein.
He undid the UN~inspectiol1s in the 1990s and is working now to further
undo the~sanctions and th~o-fly zones. He appears to believe he is
getting stronger.· His general behavior and relationships with his neighbors
suggest he is riding higher than a year ago.
- The routes into and out of Iraq seem to be increasing. One has to assume
the volume and mix of materials he desires are increasing.
-We have had a series of coalition air incidents, which, thus far, have not
resulted in the shooting down of a coalition plane, but this is an
increasingly likely danger. The recent firings demonstrate two things:
• a greater degree of Iraqi aggressiveness; and, even more important,
• what appears to be significantly improved Iraqi air defense
capability, coupled with a reduction in U.S. ability to know what
they are doing-partly because of their improved fiber optic
linkages.
Proposal
\Ve have a number of options with respect to the northern and southern no~t1y
zones. They include:
- Continue current U.S. course, with the distinct possibility that a coalition
plane will be shot down and the crew either killed or captured in the period
immediately ahead. If some importLlnt U.S. interest is being accomplished
by the flights, it is well worth the risk. If not, it isn’t.
- Undertake a fairly significant U.S. strike against Iraq’s tiber optic links,
radars, SAM sites and perhaps some asymmetrical strategic assets that
would impose a more-thanJtit-for-tat cost on Saddam for his endangennent
of our pilots. A number of the currently proposed targets are near
Baghdad. flitting them would result in a great deal of attention on CNN,
accusations that Iraqi civilians were killed and strong~potentlally
explosive-public expressions of consternation from our moderate Arab
friends in the region, even more so than was the case during the last major
strike in February.
- Finally, the U.S. could either discontinue or significantly reduce the
number of flights in the northern and southern zones. However, if we seek
to l1rnit the risk to coalition aircraft by C\ltting back on the number andlor
locations of patrols, Iraqi air defenses win continue to improve, which will
further add to the risk and create increased pressure to limit the patrols still
further or to stop them altogether.
Comment by Vince P — May 29, 2008 @ 1:03 pm - May 29, 2008
The Broader Context
While it is important, indeed necessary. that we confront the no-fly zone issues,
the NFZs are only a piece of a set of broader Iraqi policy issues. It is the broader
subject of Iraq that merits the attention of the Administration.
There are people in the Administration who can come up \’lith a variety of more
nuanced options. However, for the sake of beginning the discussion, here are
some possibilities:
- The U.S. can ran. up its tents and end the no-fly zones before someone is
killed or captured. W~ can try to tlgure out a way to keep an eye on
Saddam Hussein ‘5 aggressiveness against his neighbors from a distance.
- We can publicly acknowledge that sanctions don’t work over extended
periods and stop the pretense of having a policy that is keeping Saddam “in
the box,” when we know he has crawled a good distance out of the box and
is currently doing the things that will ultimately be harmful to his
neighbors in the region and to U.S. interests-namely developing WMD
and the means to deliver them and increasing his strength at home and in
the region month-by-month. Within a few years the U.S. will undoubtedly
have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons.
- A second option would be to go to our moderate Arab friends, have a
reappraisal and see whether they are willing to engage in a more robust
policy. \Ve would have to assert strong leadership and convince them that
we will see the project through and not leave them later to face a provoked,
but still incumbent, Saddam. The risks of a serious regime-change policy
must be weighed against the certainly of the danger of an increasingly bold
and nuclear-armed Sad dam in the near future.
- A third possibihty perhaps is to take a crack at initiating contact with
Saddam Hussein. He has his own interests. It may be that, for whatever
reason, at his stage in life he might prefer to not have the hostility of the
United States and the West and might be willing to make some
accommodation. Opening a dialogue with Saddam would be an
astonishing departure for the USG, although I did it for President Reagan
the mid-1980s. It would win praise from cel1ain quarters, but might cause
friends, especially those in the region, to question our strength, steadiness
and judgment. And the likelihood of Saddam making and respecting an
acceptable accommodation of our interests over a long period may be
small.
- There ought to be a way for the U.S. to not be at loggerheads with both of
the t\\’o most pO\vcrful nations in the Gulf— Iran and Iraq-when the two
of them do not like each other, are firing at each other and have groups in
their respective countries that are hostile to the other side. The particularly
unfortunate circumstances of Iraq being governed by Sad dam and Iran
being govemed by the clerics have suspended the standard rule that “my
enemy’s enemy is my friend.” If Saddam’s regime were ousted, we would
have a much-improved position in the region and elsewhere.
Comment by Vince P — May 29, 2008 @ 1:04 pm - May 29, 2008
Closing Thoughts
Two problems coming down the road are the following
- Iran will almost certainly have a nuclear weapon sometime within the
next five years, and that will change the balance in the region notably.
- Somebody, whether Iran, Iraq, orUsama Bin Laden, could take out the
royal family in one or more of the Gulf states and change the regime and
the balance, perhaps inviting Iranian or Traqi troops in to protect them.
Clearly, the Amb-Israeli situation makes it more difficult to take strong action,
but it is at least questionable to assume that our ability to act will improve by
waiting. It is possible that Saddam’s options will increase with time, while ours
could decrease. We certainly need to consider the effects of the Arab-Israeli
situation on U.S. Iraq policy. We also need to consider the reverse effects. A
major success with Iraq would enhance U.S. credibility and influence throughout
the region.
Vhy don’t we get some smart people to take this memo, rip it apart and refashion
it into an appropriate paper for discussion at an early Principals Committee
meeting?
-END-
Comment by Vince P — May 29, 2008 @ 1:06 pm - May 29, 2008
This is a post 9/11 “Case for Action” on 12 Sep 2002
http://www.waranddecision.com/docLib/20080403_TheCaseforAction.pdf
It’s 10 pages long.
This is the section called Iraq’s Ties to Al Qaeda. I’m pasting from a PDF document, so some of the characters are garbled
Iraq’s Ties to al Oaida
-1-Presence in Baghdad of Zat-qawi, a high level a1 Qaida planner, is
evidence of ties to Bin Laden. Ridiculous to assume that Zarqawi’s being in
Baghdad doesn’t prove anything, on grounds that Iraqi authorities may not
have known of his presence.
+Why would Zarqawi pick a police state like Iraq to go to, if he didn’t
have reason to believe he would be protected there? Many places to go
where police surveillance is less thorough than in Baghdad.
+ Zubaida recently told his interrogators that, in internal a1 Qaida
deliberations, Zarqawi had advocated closer ties to Iraq. Zarqawi was
also a co-founder of Jund al-Islam, a radical Islamist group now ‘
operating in northern Iraq (name is now Ansar al-Islam).
In addition, numerous contacts over past decade between senior Iraqi
and a1 Qaida officials, including there ai-e many intelligence reports
showing connections between Iraq and a1 Qaida, over a decade.
Faruq Hijazi, a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Saddam’s inner circle, is
reported to have personally met with UBL several times
Cooperation between Iraq and aI Qaida key areas: bombmaking
assistance, operational training, facilitation ail6 possibly in the area of
chemical and biological weapons.
+ Following a UBL request in the mid- 1 930s, Iraqi intelligence
dispatched its top bombmaker to Khartoum to provide assistance
making barometric and letter bombs
Iraq has espedited the travel of several indivudals assocationed with a1
Qaida and provided needed travel documentation
According to detainee Ibn Sliaykll al-Libi, a1 Qaida sent an operative, Abu
Abdullah a]-Iraqi to Iraq several times between 1997-2000 to seek chemical
and biological weapons training and assistance –
The argument that Saddani and bin Laden won’t cooperate, because one is
secular and tlie other Islamist, is ridiculous. On that argument, Stalin and
Hitler couldn’t have cooperated in dividing Poland in 1939.
Comment by Vince P — May 29, 2008 @ 1:34 pm - May 29, 2008
I’ve seen bulls that pump out less bullshit than the left has during the Bush administration.
Here’s LGF on the publishing company:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30118_The_Soros-McClellan_Connection
I’m normally against taking money away from people who earned it, but can we make an exception for George Soros?
Comment by Attmay — May 29, 2008 @ 5:01 pm - May 29, 2008
Soros has no problem with it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 29, 2008 @ 7:00 pm - May 29, 2008
[...] yesterday Obama spokesman Bill Burton used the occasion of the release of Scott McClellan’s book to point out that his candidate had “challenged the president’s rationale for the war [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama, Iraq & Reality — May 29, 2008 @ 9:03 pm - May 29, 2008
I simply adore all the personal comments about me by people who don’t know anything about me, have never met me, never had a discussion with me. Charming.
Seems you all need a punching bag because you simply cannot stand the fact that someone who worked for Bush and the administration has come out with some truth about what’s going on in the White House. It knocks down the walls of lies and propaganda the American public have been subjected to for nearly 8 years. You’ve nothing to express but righteous indignation, because it’s all out there now and he can’t be dismissed so easily as you do to your critics on this site.
30 & 40: Really laughing now………what hypocrisy.
Comment by Kevin — May 30, 2008 @ 4:31 am - May 30, 2008
33: Pretty funny that almost no one uses Obama’s middle name, except when it comes to conservatives attacking him on something to do with the middle east. nice little mind games you folks try to play.
Comment by Kevin — May 30, 2008 @ 4:34 am - May 30, 2008
I use his Middle Name because it makes all his supporters whine even more. B Hussein Winfrey is a laughing stock.
Comment by Vince P — May 30, 2008 @ 4:41 am - May 30, 2008
#45 - Kevin, you libtards didn’t have a problem using J. Danforth Quayle’s middle name all the time, now did you?
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
PS - One more question for you to ponder, Kevvie - if McClellan’s book had been all glowing praise, would you still have believed it? Be honest - I know it’s a stretch for you libtards to deal with the truth.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 30, 2008 @ 12:12 pm - May 30, 2008
#45 - “nice little mind games you folks try to play”
Well, Kevvie, playing mind games with libtards is much easier than shooting fish in a barrel, don’t ya think? It really takes very little effort and the results are so spectacular.
You can go home now, your cage is clean.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 30, 2008 @ 3:53 pm - May 30, 2008