DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum R U sure you want change???

McClellan: Bush misled U.S. on Iraq
McClellan says in new book that White House used propaganda to sell war

By Michael D. Shear
The Washington Post
updated 12:57 a.m. ET, Wed., May. 28, 2008

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war."

McClellan includes the charges in a 341-page book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," that delivers a harsh look at the White House and the man he served for close to a decade. He describes Bush as demonstrating a "lack of inquisitiveness," says the White House operated in "permanent campaign" mode, and admits to having been deceived by some in the president's inner circle about the leak of a CIA operative's name.

The book, coming from a man who was a tight-lipped defender of administration aides and policy, is certain to give fuel to critics of the administration, and McClellan has harsh words for many of his past colleagues. He accuses former White House adviser Karl Rove of misleading him about his role in the CIA case. He describes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as being deft at deflecting blame, and he calls Vice President Cheney "the magic man" who steered policy behind the scenes while leaving no fingerprints.

‘Selling the War’

McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not "employing out-and-out deception" to make their case for war in 2002.

But in a chapter titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."

"Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."

McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."

McClellan resigned from the White House on April 19, 2006, after nearly three years as Bush's press secretary. The departure was part of a shake-up engineered by new Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten that also resulted in Rove surrendering his policy-management duties.

‘Poisonous atmosphere in Washington’

A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on the book, some contents of which were first disclosed by Politico.com. The Washington Post acquired a copy of the book yesterday, in advance of its official release Monday.

Responding to a request for comment, McClellan wrote in an e-mail: "Like many Americans, I am concerned about the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. I wanted to take readers inside the White House and provide them an open and honest look at how things went off course and what can be learned from it. Hopefully in some small way it will contribute to changing Washington for the better and move us beyond the hyper-partisan environment that has permeated Washington over the past 15 years."

The criticism of Bush in the book is striking, given that it comes from a man who followed him to Washington from Texas.

Bush is depicted as an out-of-touch leader, operating in a political bubble, who has stubbornly refused to admit mistakes. McClellan defends the president's intellect -- "Bush is plenty smart enough to be president," he writes -- but casts him as unwilling or unable to be reflective about his job.

"A more self-confident executive would be willing to acknowledge failure, to trust people's ability to forgive those who seek redemption for mistakes and show a readiness to change," he writes.


Says Bush in permanent campaign mode

In another section, McClellan describes Bush as able to convince himself of his own spin and relates a phone call he overheard Bush having during the 2000 campaign, in which he said he could not remember whether he had used cocaine. "I remember thinking to myself, 'How can that be?' " he writes.

The former aide describes Bush as a willing participant in treating his presidency as a permanent political campaign, run in large part by his top political adviser, Rove.

"The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office," he writes. "And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."

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."

Blames Rove for Katrina, Plame fiascos

McClellan charges that the campaign-style focus affected Bush's entire presidency. The ill-fated Air Force One flyover of New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina struck the city, was conceived of by Rove, who was "thinking about the political perceptions" but ended up making Bush look "out of touch," he writes.

He says the White House's reaction to Katrina was more than just a public relations disaster, calling it "a failure of imagination and initiative" and the result of an administration that "let events control us." He adds: "It was a costly blunder."

McClellan admits to letting himself be deceived about the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, which resulted in his relentless pounding by the White House press corps over the activities of Rove and of Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the matter.

"I could feel something fall out of me into the abyss as each reporter took a turn whacking me," he writes of the withering criticism he received as the story played out. "It was my reputation crumbling away, bit by bit." He also suggests that Rove and Libby may have worked behind closed doors to coordinate their stories about the Plame leak. Late last year, McClellan's publisher released an excerpt of the book that suggested Bush had knowledge of the leak, something that won McClellan no friends in the administration.

As McClellan departed the White House, he said: "Change can be helpful, and this is a good time and good position to help bring about change. I am ready to move on."

He choked up as he told Bush on the South Lawn, "I have given it my all, sir, and I have given you my all."

Bush responded at the time: "He handled his assignments with class, integrity. He really represents the best of his family, our state and our country. It's going to be hard to replace Scott."

Staff writer Michael Abramowitz contributed to this report.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24848910/

I do not agree with the concept that Bush lied. I believe that the evidence to support the counter argument was undervalued and the intelligence to support the war was not fully verified. Call it selective use of intelligence.

The Bush administration did not do its job before engaging in war. And it is clear to me that a propaganda campaign was used to garner support for the war. This will probably come to light over the next week as Scott McCenland book is published.

With respect to your last point it seem contradictory to me. In point 2 you are will defening a rational to defend you and your country first, and in the last point you are willing to allow americans to die to cover the blunders of the administration.

I have family in Iraq as well. That is, in part why I want out.

You knew I was going to post that didn't you? At least it isn't ignorant. Since you posted it.

No, you have far more knowledge than I do on this matter. I have and freely admit to much ignorance on the subject. That's the difference between you and I.

I watched that on CNN last night...it probably deserves it's own thread. But interesting nonetheless. They had their spinsters on, from both sides. Dems calling it a smoking gun...Reps saying that McClellan is a disgruntled former employee. I'll take it for what it is, the former W.H. press secretary blowing a whistle. Whether he had intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the white house (one would think he would know something) is debatable.

one thing it all shows is just how screwed up Washington is, and that one man/woman, no matter how much he would like, can change it by himself. It will take that one man/woman and their ability to convince others in Washington that change is needed, and the people to vote out those that wish to continue walking the current path.

There is no reason, with responsible government, that we cannot provide for those truly in need, pay our debts, repair and rebuild our infrastructure, and maintain our status in a global economy.

Washington is the Enron of governments right now. All self centered, and "what can it do for me" attitude.

Quote:

---

What next? Would you tell Firemen or Police personel not to do their job because its to dangerous.

---

naw...i think i'll go set fire to my enemy's house and send in the firemen to risk their lives putting it out...

Interesting article, Jules. Thanks. I am interested in reading the book and getting more detail. Since the author 'stopped short" of saying Bush lied, I'd like to read more in depth on his thoughts. Right now, it could be that Bush pushed for positive public opinino because of what he believed. It also could be that there was a different agenda and WMDs were a subterfuge. I'd like to see more details because, as I've said, if there is actual proof of the latter, my view will change.

Add to that both sides (Dem and Repubs) are both spouting two scenarios that are possible and it would be interesting to know which one is true. This could be a "smoking gun" or it could be a disgruntled employee making a buck.......or it could be somewhere in the middle. I'm going to get this book and see what details are in it.

Just saw this and it clearly shows me that Obama is an agent of change who will stand against the status quo of "power at all cost" who will include all voices in the debate and who will reset the tone in Washington...

Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign
By Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston
CNN's AC 360°

(CNN) -- When the Democratic National Committee meets Saturday on the thorny issue of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations at its August convention, party officials will have to fashion a solution that satisfies supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton and presidential nominee front-runner Sen. Barack Obama.


Sen. Barack Obama showed he was willing to use bare-knuckle tactics during his first race in Chicago.

It may take a Solomon-like decision to appease both candidates.

Clinton has argued that the primary results of two of the nation's largest states should count because, otherwise, millions of voters are being disenfranchised. Obama has said he is willing to work out some compromise.

But he is insistent that the primary results are invalid because the two states failed to follow party rules and that the rules are the rules.

The DNC has not seated the Florida and Michigan delegates because the two states violated party edicts in holding their primaries early.

Although neither candidate campaigned in the two states, Clinton won about 50 percent of the Florida vote, compared with 33 percent for Obama. She won 55 percent of the vote in Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot.

In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago's gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

"That was Chicago politics," said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. "Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice."

Obama's challenge was perfectly legal, said Jay Stewart of the Chicago's Better Government Association. Although records of the challenges are no longer on file for review with the election board, Stewart said Obama is not the only politician to resort to petition challenges to eliminate the competition.

"He came from Chicago politics," Stewart said. "Politics ain't beanbag, as they say in Chicago. You play with your elbows up, and you're pretty tough and ruthless when you have to be. Sen. Obama felt that's what was necessary at the time, that's what he did. Does it fit in with the rhetoric now? Perhaps not."

The Obama campaign called this report "a hit job." It insisted that CNN talk to a state representative who supports Obama, because, according to an Obama spokesman, she would be objective. But when we called her, she said she can't recall details of petition challenges, who engineered them for the Obama campaign or why all the candidates were challenged.

But Will Burns does. Now running himself for a seat in the Illinois legislature, Burns was a young Obama volunteer during the presidential candidate's first race.

Burns was one of the contingents of volunteers and lawyers who had the tedious task of going over each and every petition submitted by the other candidates, including those of Alice Palmer.

"The rules are there for a reason," Burns said.

He said that challenging petitions is a smart way to avoid having to run a full-blown expensive race.

"One of the first things you do whenever you're in the middle of a primary race, especially in primaries in Chicago, because if you don't have signatures to get on the ballot, you save yourself a lot of time and effort from having to raise money and have a full-blown campaign effort against an incumbent," Burns said.


There is more here...
web page

All it said to me is that he takes things literally when it can benefit him. Show me a time when he followed the letter of the law even though it would have a negative effect on himself.

Quote:

---

Show me a time when he followed the letter of the law even though it would have a negative effect on himself.

---

I can't... which is my point. He claims to be an agent of change but when you get right down to it, he's just as coniving, underhanded and power hungry as the rest of them...

So you aren't among the "Bush lied" group? You sure have defended them enough to make it appear you were. If you weren't and I said you were, I apologize for misnuderstanding your stance.

I am not saying what he did was necessarily a bad thing. The results of being wrong were, obvviously (though I still say there has been good things that could result from it). What I mean is that when you believe something is true, it would make sense to show what supports it in a situation like this. If you believed Iraq had WMDs and felt it necessary to go after them, you would want your country fully behind it. That's what I mean when I say that it wasn't necessarily a bad thing. I doubt any president has done much different when trying to get public opinion behind what they believe is best for the cournty.

Just adding this note for those with HBO. Watch the incredible interview program called something like "Alive Day". It is interviews with 10 people that were injured in Iraq, actually died and were brought back. It is truly sad, but at the same time so awe inspiring with the courage of these brave Americans. One, sorry I don't recall his name, lost both legs, one arm, and part of his other hand (which was reattached). Even with all of that, he said he would go back and do it again. What an incredible hero I wish would get more public notice. Someone so brave and that loves their country that much! Something to be proud of and a PERFECT role model for all.

Well, we disagree on some of that, obviously. I don't think he lied. I do think he believed that Iraq had WMDs and he was "hell bent" on defending the country. Was he "premature"? I won't disagree with that in hindsight and I think he was overzealous. What I've said all along is I can understand WHY he would be so "hell bent" and overzealous. Where I have a problem is when some posters, like the one above, claim tht Bush went to war over such ridiculous things as because Saddam tried to kill his "daddy" and other such nonsense and actually created the intelligence. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with the war. I also have no problem when people say there were mistakes made. As I keep saying, I've lost relatives in this war and my stepson is readying to go now. I want things done right. I want mistakes minimalized, if not done away with (as humans, we will never be perfect).

It's the tone of those that say things like I mentioned above that makes me feel like they are disrespecting those that sacrificed in this war and puts me in such an angry state. Seeing where you are coming from the last two posts, I will say that we aren't THAT far off in our thoughts as I (and possibly you) have always thought. I guess in my passion for defending from the ridiculous, I have possibly misread some intent in what you've tried to say (and possibly vice versa). That's one of the problems of message boards. Anyway, having read your last two posts, I apologize for some of the things I've posted towards you. I understand better where you are coming from. I still disagree with you, but will have to take the label of "pinko commie" off of you Anyway, there's no smiley with an olive branch, so we'll agree to disagree and possibly build on the last couple of posts to discuss things in a civl manner.

I think I'm gonna cry...that was touching!

Coach, you may be a real boy after all!

I'll bet you are proud as heck of your stepson Coach. I know you said he was in Boot camp at Parris Island. If you can, try to make it to his Graduation. My son graduated from there a couple of years ago. They put on a pretty good show even if they are Marines.

Hey, I'm very passionate about the sacrifices made and get down right irate when someone makes absurd statements. Unfortunately, it appears that while I disagree with Phil, he got caught in the buckshot so to speak. You can surely relate to that. Not everything I've said on here has been taken as intended by you (and others). It's that when you feel as passionately about something as I do, and as you do in other things, your reaction is that something that is negative is lumped into the BS. I've done it. You've done it. We all have. When I realize I have, I am man enough to apologize. Heck, I'm sure we've done it to each other in race discussions. We've automatically thought that statements made were defenses or accusations of the extreme opposite of what the other thinks. I'll apologize to you now....just remember that next time we talk about those subjects so we BOTH can discuss them while trying to see what the other's trying to say. Now, Richard, give me a hug (had to throw that Tommy Boy reference in there )

I am VERY proud of my son. I have raised him for 19 of his 23 years. I am proud of the decision he's made and the man he's become. I will be at the graduation. Unfortunately, I don't know when that will be. He injured his arm, not too serious that we know of right now, and he is in sick bay doing physical therapy. When he is ok, he will be re-inserted with a platoon at where he left off. So, everything's on hold. The worst part is that he had been named squad leader of his platoon and doing great before the injury.

Olive branch accepted.

I've always been very concerned and active with those who go to war. I don't think we should've gone to war in Iraq, and when we leave I have a strong feeling that our soldiers are going to be ignored. Our government does not take enough care of them, especially in the area of mental health. These people go off into horrific circumstances that alters their perception of humanity in such a shocking way...and they're supposed to just come home and rejoin society?

The war in Iraq has and will continue to cause the loss of lives, limbs, and sanity. The final monetary cost will be astronomical. And in the end, I don't feel that it's really going to be worth it. I believe that the reason we were attacked on September 11 had everything to do with our actions in the Middle East. That doesn't minimalize the depravity of the attackers, nor does it villify the U.S. It's simply an observation -- if we didn't build military bases all over Saudi Arabia, and have diplomatic and financial ties with murderous dictators, if we didn't support the human rights vioaltions of Israel...those planes don't hit those buildings.

'Terrorists' and 'terrorism' aren't a bunch of guys with turbans hiding in the mountains. It's a tactic of violence carried out by the desolate and frustrated. To stop it, one must examine the problem that caused the unrest, and I don't think our actions in the Middle East are doing anything but picking off foot soldiers while we increase the problem. I assure you that we could kill very last member of al Qaeda, and our problems in the Middle East would still exist.

Well, I agree totally with some of what you just said and dsiagree with some as well. I don't think that the reason for terrorist is just frustration and poverty. I thoroughly believe that there are just as many that are doing so because of their fanatcism for their religion. Fanatacism has begat violance for centruies.

I also think that it is necessary to be an ally with Israel because without that ally, Israel would no longer exist and the Jewish people would be eradicated. This hatred and bitterness from Muslims towards Jews dates back to the time of Abraham. It's hard to fathom that kind of religious fanatacism that would lead people to do such things in the name of God (any god) because our nation has thankfully not had that kind of level of fanaticism for quite a while.. However, SOME are still stuck in the past and have this sort of thing as a belief system that isn't shaken. We even have it, on a much much smaller scale here. It doesn't happen often, but you do have those fanatics that blow up abortion clinics and such in the name of God.

Group hug

Now lets all find some county rap to listen to

Hey Coach, I can't do an olive branch, but how about a dove of peace?

Thanks, DC, good one . I guess I'm getting some healing from the losses our family has suffered and realized that I not everyone that is critical of the war is making outlandish statements that others do. Maybe that's why I was able to read exactly what Phil was saying and not automatically have my fur up so to speak. I just sat back and realized that criticism of things involved in the war, which I have criticisms as well, do not necessarily mean the person is one of those spouting how Bush invented intel and other outlandish statements. With the losses I have had in my family, I automatically jumped to the defense of the war with, at times, overreaction. I think it was because it felt like, and still does with those I mentioned earlier, that it was disrespecting and minimalizing the sacrrifce that my loved ones, and other brave soldiers, have made.

Borrom line is that I will stop shooting first and asking questions later......I'm sure Phil will say that I decided not to follow Bush's philosophy. If we don't do that, not just here but as a nation, we will never resolve anything and continue to be divided and hindered in fixing everything from the war to race relations, the economy, etc.

The problem is, if Fleisher wrote a book taking the counter position, then it's those who hate Bush that should read it and those who love Bush should read McClellans... but it doesn't work that way, people will read the book they think will validate their opinion instead of the one that might shed new light on their opinion and cause them to think....

Quote:

---

Fleischer is on record saying this is hogwash and if McClellan had issues with anything going on, it would have been his JOB to say so at the time.

---

Honestly, what else would Fleischer say (outside of what McClellan said). And it wouldn't be McClellan's job to say something at the time, it was his JOB to present the information given him, and be the spokesman for the White House.

Richard Armitage is the one who was fingered as the leak by Novack. I don't know if Armitage ever came forward and admitted it.

I haven't really heard to much about anything new. It's sure seems like he has some kind of vandetta against Carl Rowe. The problem that most of these guys (who turn on their own in books) exaggerate, or out right lie about somethings. When they are exposed (the lies) it takes away credibility of everything else that they say, even if most of it is truthful.

Hey Phil, I was watching O'Rielly last night where he was talking to Rowe about intercepted communications where commanders in the field were asking about when they were going to use WMD's?

I don't know exactly what was stated, and there are thousands of pages of transcripts.

My point isn't that he indeed had them, but rather his own commanders didn't know he didn't.