Fox News on McClellan book

[mattp]

Check this out

White House Officials Decry McClellan Claims About Administration

 

According to Fox, McClellan didn't say Bush lied; and McClellan didn't say Bush lied; and oh yes, McClellan didn't say Bush lied. In an article about the White House decryimg McClellan's claims, there is no mention of what the claims were - like that Bush used propaganda to sell the war or that Bush, Cheney, Rove and Armitage mislead him so McClellan gave false statements about the Plame story.

 

Have they actually denied any of the specific allegations made by McClellan?

[JayB]

Flesh this out for me a bit, so that I can connect the dots twirling around inside your head.

 

For the sake of argument, let's accept your premise that George Bush knew that all of the statements that his administration was basing its arguments for invading Iraq upon were false. They also somehow knew that this would not undermine their efforts to secure the cooperation and participation of other governments, the Pentagon, Congress, etc, and that no one in the American government that is involved in the plot will subvert their conspiracy - at least not until the invasion had already occurred.

 

What's the post-invasion plan?

 

"Okay - so we invade based on information that we know is false, then after the invasion when there will be enormous pressure to validate our arguments with evidence, we'll say "Whoops" and that'll be the end of it."

 

"Sounds good. Roger that."

 

On one hand, you have these guys conducting the most extensive, intricately orchestrated conspiracy in the history of mankind before the war begins - and after the war commences, these same guys not only don't have a plan to sustain the conspiracy by planting false evidence, they spend a few hundred million dollars and several months documenting the absence of WMD's, etc? Were they calculating and diabolical enough to conduct such an elaborate fraud, yet also somehow (simultaneously) too stupid to forsee the immense damage that would occur to their administration, and that the nation, etc would sustain when the fraud was unmasked, as it would inevitably be?

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

You are still arguing they were genuine?

 

You assume they had the forethought to plan for post-invasion contingencies? What in the entirety of their administration would make you think that?

[ivan]

i don't see how this is much different from what lbj did in '65 - misrepresenting, obfuscating, exagerating - i like that mcclellan's at least being honest about it all, but is any of this really a ground-breaking revelation?

[Jim]

I think this just bears out what is strikingly evident now. That the Idiot and his group were very good at politics and lousy at governing. They did an impressive PR campaign for the war, getting ex-generals on board to push their positions as talking heads on the news channels, leaked false tid-bits to headline hungy reporters and then pointed to those stores as evidence of what they were saying, and generally ramped up the retoric. As far as dissent in the Pentagon - the White House made it known it was their way or the highway - which caused a stream of retirements and loss of command positions before and during the war.

 

The necons just kept promising the flowering of democracy without any forethought regarding the region's complex history, religous divisions, or ethnic tensions. It was less naivete and more adherence faulty reasoning and idealism.

[Rad]

I think Matt's point is also that Fox is a partisan news source. Most other media outlets talked about how McClellan totally slammed Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rice, and others.

[JayB]

You are still arguing they were genuine?

 

You assume they had the forethought to plan for post-invasion contingencies? What in the entirety of their administration would make you think that?

 

What is the "they" in question here. Do I believe that they knew in advance that there were no WMD's in Iraq, yet persisted in basing their arguments for invasion on this claim, which would invariably be disproven once they had unfettered access to every site in the country? No. In such a scenario, massive and disastrous consequences for their administration, the country, aren't a *contingency* in such a scenario - they're a dead certainty.

 

The fact that a substantial portion of the electorate has chosen to frame major events in terms of baroque conspiracy theories that flatter their ideological precommittments - whether that be the invasion of Iraq, the 9/11 attacks, both recent presidential elections, etc - is quite worrisome.

[JayB]

I think this just bears out what is strikingly evident now. That the Idiot and his group were very good at politics and lousy at governing. They did an impressive PR campaign for the war, getting ex-generals on board to push their positions as talking heads on the news channels, leaked false tid-bits to headline hungy reporters and then pointed to those stores as evidence of what they were saying, and generally ramped up the retoric. As far as dissent in the Pentagon - the White House made it known it was their way or the highway - which caused a stream of retirements and loss of command positions before and during the war.

 

The necons just kept promising the flowering of democracy without any forethought regarding the region's complex history, religous divisions, or ethnic tensions. It was less naivete and more adherence faulty reasoning and idealism.

 

This is at least lucid and sane.

 

When it comes to waging wars - there has never been, and never will be a time when a sitting government will not have to make the case for prosecuting the said war in public. Anyone who thinks that Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, etc made the case for the wars that they declared in the absence of opposition or recriminations, before or afterwards, is dreaming. None of them had the luxury of knowing what the outcome would be in advance either. There's a large spectrum of possibilities between easy victory and devastating defeat every time you enter into a war.

 

Poor intelligence, poor analysis, poor planning, poor decision making, poor execution - all fertile grounds for reasonable discussion when wars end "well," much less when they end on unfavorable terms, and none of which require introducing sinister and unproven elements or seance-worthy speculations about interior thoughts and motives into the conversation.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Poor intelligence, poor analysis, poor planning, poor decision making, poor execution - all fertile grounds for reasonable discussion when wars end "well," much less when they end on unfavorable terms, and none of which require introducing sinister and unproven elements or seance-worthy speculations about interior thoughts and motives into the conversation.

 

 

Neither is it necessary nor desirable to constantly impugn the motives of those making the decisions, demonizing them and assuming and positing all the worst about them. It would be refreshing for once for more folks to assume those in power with whom they disagree politically are equally as desirous for what is best for the nation as those withm whom they agree politically.

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

The fact that a substantial portion of the electorate has chosen to frame major events in terms of baroque conspiracy theories that flatter their ideological precommittments - whether that be the invasion of Iraq, the 9/11 attacks, both recent presidential elections, etc - is quite worrisome.

 

What is baroque in thinking that W went to war in Iraq because he believe it best for the country? He did - he just never bothered to do much research in evaluating what would be good for the country and spent much time dismissing the people who said the war was useless.

 

Your naivety regarding politics is touching.

[mattp]

It would be refreshing for once for more folks to assume those in power with whom they disagree politically are equally as desirous for what is best for the nation as those withm whom they agree politically.

 

That WOULD be refresshing, KK, but in this case it would be idiotic if by that you mean we shouldn't question their motives or methods in selling the war. I'm willing to cede that they probably thought they were doing what was best for the country, but the history is very clear that they decided to attak Iraq first and made up a justification second. link

 

Look up "aluminum tubes." Try AlQueda in Prague. Niger Uranium purchase. In all three of these specific cases the administration presented "evidence" that they knew was at least questionnable if not downright incorrect.

 

Remember how Condi Rice told us we'd see a mushroom cloud in Manhattan, when the only people who had actually been in Iraq and knew about Saddam's program said he had none?

 

I'm willing to concede that Bush and company probably thought they were making a good decision, but you'd be an idiot if you didn't conclude they lied about it and some kind of blind idealogue if you now argue that it is "right" for them to have lied about it.

 

 

[JayB]

The fact that a substantial portion of the electorate has chosen to frame major events in terms of baroque conspiracy theories that flatter their ideological precommittments - whether that be the invasion of Iraq, the 9/11 attacks, both recent presidential elections, etc - is quite worrisome.

 

What is baroque in thinking that W went to war in Iraq because he believe it best for the country? He did - he just never bothered to do much research in evaluating what would be good for the country and spent much time dismissing the people who said the war was useless.

 

Your naivety regarding politics is touching.

 

Nothing. How does your most recent statement jive with the following?

 

"You are still arguing they were genuine?"

 

Was it poor planning, execution, etc based on bad and/or incomplete information? Or an elaborate conspiracy based on claims and evidence that they knew were false from the get-go?

[mattp]

Was it poor planning, execution, etc based on bad and/or incomplete information? Or an elaborate conspiracy based on claims and evidence that they knew were false from the get-go?

 

C: all of the above.

[mattp]

Oh, and it would not in my opinion be "refreshing" at all to simply say it is time to move on now. Clearly, we don't want something like this to happen again.

[chucK]

JayB,

 

I think this quote paraphrasing the McClellan book sums up my guess at what went on:

 

The US president wanted to topple Saddam "primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East," but knew that the US public would never agree to send troops into harm's way for that purpose, he says.

 

So Bush went along with "shading the truth; downplaying the major reason for going to war and emphasizing a lesser motivation that could arguably be dealt with in other ways (such as intensified diplomatic pressure)," he said.

 

Not an elaborate "baroque" conspiracy, just another (well-executed) sell job. I don't think they knew that there were no WMD's, but I don't think they were really that worried about them either.

 

I do agree with Rove or whomever said it that McClellan's stuff sounds right out of a liberal blog. That quote above could have come from me!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It would be refreshing for once for more folks to assume those in power with whom they disagree politically are equally as desirous for what is best for the nation as those withm whom they agree politically.

 

That WOULD be refresshing, KK, but in this case it would be idiotic if by that you mean we shouldn't question their motives or methods in selling the war. I'm willing to cede that they probably thought they were doing what was best for the country, but the history is very clear that they decided to attak Iraq first and made up a justification second. link

 

Look up "aluminum tubes." Try AlQueda in Prague. Niger Uranium purchase. In all three of these specific cases the administration presented "evidence" that they knew was at least questionnable if not downright incorrect.

 

Remember how Condi Rice told us we'd see a mushroom cloud in Manhattan, when the only people who had actually been in Iraq and knew about Saddam's program said he had none?

 

I'm willing to concede that Bush and company probably thought they were making a good decision, but you'd be an idiot if you didn't conclude they lied about it and some kind of blind idealogue if you now argue that it is "right" for them to have lied about it.

 

 

Whatever dude. The more you talk like this, the quicker I tune you out.

 

[rob]

Flesh this out for me a bit, so that I can connect the dots twirling around inside your head.

 

For the sake of argument, let's accept your premise that George Bush knew that all of the statements that his administration was basing its arguments for invading Iraq upon were false. They also somehow knew that this would not undermine their efforts to secure the cooperation and participation of other governments, the Pentagon, Congress, etc, and that no one in the American government that is involved in the plot will subvert their conspiracy - at least not until the invasion had already occurred.

 

What's the post-invasion plan?

 

"Okay - so we invade based on information that we know is false, then after the invasion when there will be enormous pressure to validate our arguments with evidence, we'll say "Whoops" and that'll be the end of it."

 

"Sounds good. Roger that."

 

On one hand, you have these guys conducting the most extensive, intricately orchestrated conspiracy in the history of mankind before the war begins - and after the war commences, these same guys not only don't have a plan to sustain the conspiracy by planting false evidence, they spend a few hundred million dollars and several months documenting the absence of WMD's, etc? Were they calculating and diabolical enough to conduct such an elaborate fraud, yet also somehow (simultaneously) too stupid to forsee the immense damage that would occur to their administration, and that the nation, etc would sustain when the fraud was unmasked, as it would inevitably be?

 

 

 

 

I can't articulate quite as well as you can, Jay, but it is my opinion that they knew that they were lying, but that they thought they were right (if that makes any sense.) Sort of like the cop who plants evidence because he's convinced the guy is a drug dealer anyway, but just too smooth to get caught honestly....

[JayB]

It would be refreshing for once for more folks to assume those in power with whom they disagree politically are equally as desirous for what is best for the nation as those withm whom they agree politically.

 

That WOULD be refresshing, KK, but in this case it would be idiotic if by that you mean we shouldn't question their motives or methods in selling the war. I'm willing to cede that they probably thought they were doing what was best for the country, but the history is very clear that they decided to attak Iraq first and made up a justification second. link

 

Look up "aluminum tubes." Try AlQueda in Prague. Niger Uranium purchase. In all three of these specific cases the administration presented "evidence" that they knew was at least questionnable if not downright incorrect.

 

Remember how Condi Rice told us we'd see a mushroom cloud in Manhattan, when the only people who had actually been in Iraq and knew about Saddam's program said he had none?

 

I'm willing to concede that Bush and company probably thought they were making a good decision, but you'd be an idiot if you didn't conclude they lied about it and some kind of blind idealogue if you now argue that it is "right" for them to have lied about it.

 

 

Whoa - quite a revision there!

 

I was going to respond to your original, and much more sensible statement by saying that while of course discussions of motives

have to be left on the table of public discourse, not every idea concerning either is equally sound, beneficial, and useful - nor should anyone expect them to be treated as such.

 

There seems to be a generalized notion floating around there that any idea that anyone puts forward concerning a public figure's motives or methods should be treated as a noble contribution to the national well-being, irrespective of the actual content or merits of the said idea. This is simply not the case. When and if Obama is elected, and if people on the right issue "questions" about his motives or methods on par with what you've introduced for the past eight years ("Bush started the war to enrich Halliburton, etc..", we'll see a tacit admission of this fact immediately when you and others respond to them with the withering critiques that they'll deserve.

[JayB]

Flesh this out for me a bit, so that I can connect the dots twirling around inside your head.

 

For the sake of argument, let's accept your premise that George Bush knew that all of the statements that his administration was basing its arguments for invading Iraq upon were false. They also somehow knew that this would not undermine their efforts to secure the cooperation and participation of other governments, the Pentagon, Congress, etc, and that no one in the American government that is involved in the plot will subvert their conspiracy - at least not until the invasion had already occurred.

 

What's the post-invasion plan?

 

"Okay - so we invade based on information that we know is false, then after the invasion when there will be enormous pressure to validate our arguments with evidence, we'll say "Whoops" and that'll be the end of it."

 

"Sounds good. Roger that."

 

On one hand, you have these guys conducting the most extensive, intricately orchestrated conspiracy in the history of mankind before the war begins - and after the war commences, these same guys not only don't have a plan to sustain the conspiracy by planting false evidence, they spend a few hundred million dollars and several months documenting the absence of WMD's, etc? Were they calculating and diabolical enough to conduct such an elaborate fraud, yet also somehow (simultaneously) too stupid to forsee the immense damage that would occur to their administration, and that the nation, etc would sustain when the fraud was unmasked, as it would inevitably be?

 

 

 

 

I can't articulate quite as well as you can, Jay, but it is my opinion that they knew that they were lying, but that they thought they were right (if that makes any sense.) Sort of like the cop who plants evidence because he's convinced the guy is a drug dealer anyway, but just too smooth to get caught honestly....

 

Well - that's an interesting way to look at it. Just for the sake of argument, if we carry this analogy forward a bit more, wouldn't the "cop" in question also have to realize that he'll be found out and accept the inevitable consequences of such an outcome?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Flesh this out for me a bit, so that I can connect the dots twirling around inside your head.

 

For the sake of argument, let's accept your premise that George Bush knew that all of the statements that his administration was basing its arguments for invading Iraq upon were false. They also somehow knew that this would not undermine their efforts to secure the cooperation and participation of other governments, the Pentagon, Congress, etc, and that no one in the American government that is involved in the plot will subvert their conspiracy - at least not until the invasion had already occurred.

 

What's the post-invasion plan?

 

"Okay - so we invade based on information that we know is false, then after the invasion when there will be enormous pressure to validate our arguments with evidence, we'll say "Whoops" and that'll be the end of it."

 

"Sounds good. Roger that."

 

On one hand, you have these guys conducting the most extensive, intricately orchestrated conspiracy in the history of mankind before the war begins - and after the war commences, these same guys not only don't have a plan to sustain the conspiracy by planting false evidence, they spend a few hundred million dollars and several months documenting the absence of WMD's, etc? Were they calculating and diabolical enough to conduct such an elaborate fraud, yet also somehow (simultaneously) too stupid to forsee the immense damage that would occur to their administration, and that the nation, etc would sustain when the fraud was unmasked, as it would inevitably be?

 

 

 

 

I can't articulate quite as well as you can, Jay, but it is my opinion that they knew that they were lying, but that they thought they were right (if that makes any sense.) Sort of like the cop who plants evidence because he's convinced the guy is a drug dealer anyway, but just too smooth to get caught honestly....

 

Well - that's an interesting way to look at it. Just for the sake of argument, if we carry this analogy forward a bit more, wouldn't the "cop" in question also have to realize that he'll be found out and accept the inevitable consequences of such an outcome?

 

And the "judge" in this case evaluating the admissability of the evidence was congress, who authorized the use of force?

[chucK]

No. The cop thinks he's too smart and won't get caught. See "hubris".

[Hugh Conway]

Well - that's an interesting way to look at it. Just for the sake of argument, if we carry this analogy forward a bit more, wouldn't the "cop" in question also have to realize that he'll be found out and accept the inevitable consequences of such an outcome?

 

Ponzi Schemes. Please research.

 

Not everyfraud in life is exposed, not every crime is discovered or punished.

[No. 13 Baby]

disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee

disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee disgruntled former employee

[JayB]

JayB,

 

I think this quote paraphrasing the McClellan book sums up my guess at what went on:

 

The US president wanted to topple Saddam "primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East," but knew that the US public would never agree to send troops into harm's way for that purpose, he says.

 

So Bush went along with "shading the truth; downplaying the major reason for going to war and emphasizing a lesser motivation that could arguably be dealt with in other ways (such as intensified diplomatic pressure)," he said.

 

Not an elaborate "baroque" conspiracy, just another (well-executed) sell job. I don't think they knew that there were no WMD's, but I don't think they were really that worried about them either.

 

I do agree with Rove or whomever said it that McClellan's stuff sounds right out of a liberal blog. That quote above could have come from me!

 

That's a much more credible summary of what happened, IMO. I'd agree that the decision to go to war revolved around strategic an political considerations that were more extensive than WMD alone. I'd disagree about them not being worried about what would happen if the central argument for the invasion turned out to be based on false information, but you can have a reasonable discussion about that, that's at least tethered to reality.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

JayB,

 

I think this quote paraphrasing the McClellan book sums up my guess at what went on:

 

The US president wanted to topple Saddam "primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East," but knew that the US public would never agree to send troops into harm's way for that purpose, he says.

 

So Bush went along with "shading the truth; downplaying the major reason for going to war and emphasizing a lesser motivation that could arguably be dealt with in other ways (such as intensified diplomatic pressure)," he said.

 

Not an elaborate "baroque" conspiracy, just another (well-executed) sell job. I don't think they knew that there were no WMD's, but I don't think they were really that worried about them either.

 

I do agree with Rove or whomever said it that McClellan's stuff sounds right out of a liberal blog. That quote above could have come from me!

 

That's a much more credible summary of what happened, IMO. I'd agree that the decision to go to war revolved around strategic an political considerations that were more extensive than WMD alone. I'd disagree about them not being worried about what would happen if the central argument for the invasion turned out to be based on false information, but you can have a reasonable discussion about that, that's at least tethered to reality.

 

 

I agree.

 

WMD was the "marketing" to sell the war, and they grasped for straws to build up that "case", but it was not the motivation for the war.