It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war.

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Great background post Budski.

What is so amazing is to watch the "propaganda / talking points" on the character assassination they are now doing on McClellan. Fleisher, Bartlett, Perino and Rove are all repeating the same lines. "This is not the Scott we know," "If he felt this way, he should have spoken up," "We're puzzled" and "He wouldn't have had access to those types of meetings."
It's laughable because this is exactly what they did in the lead up to the war so it proves McClellan's larger point about this administration and its propaganda machine. Additionally, does that mean Fleisher and Perino have no access either? Who's in charge of communication then? No wonder the press briefings have been so schizo for the past eight years. God Bless Helen Thomas and David Gregory for standing up against the spin and chaos.

As far as whether McClellan is a hero or the goat, the fact is he was a Press Secretary, not a policy maker. He is not responsible for the mess in Iraq. His job was to go out and report what they told him. He states that he was giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iraq - as did virtually everyone in the U.S. - but he was concerned. But when they bent him over on the CIA leak case and made him publicly discredited, he was out of there. I submit that very few people are able to stand up against the politics of their workplace or boss, now just think how much more difficult it is when you work at the White House for the most powerful (and crazy) man in the world.

The fact is McClellen was a Bush loyalist from before the 2000 election. He is witness to all the inner workings and machinations of the White House and the Administration. The account is powerful in both its source and context. I would suggest we don't kill the messenger. Hell - ATS has been clamoring for a whistle-blower, now let him tell all he knows. Don't buy into the NeoCon spin job on his character - they never had a problem with him before now. Don't be so gullible people.

The question is how much more corroborating evidence does the Congress or a Special Prosecutor need to bring charges against Bush, et al? Just a few weeks ago we had the story about how the T.V. talking head analysts were all on the Pentagon payroll while they dispensed their spin in the days before the war started. That corroborates McClellen's account. Then you have Plame and her husband - again corroboration. Then the IAEA report - corroboration. What else does the American public need to prosecute these fascist morons?

[edit on 29/5/08 by kosmicjack]




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
The fact that Bush and Cheney are not behind bars is proof that the democratic system is broken. Why is no one talking about it? That's rhetorical, btw.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Well here's the lead headline from this morning's Washington Post:


Bush 'Disappointed' by Ex-Aide's Harsh Memoir

Highly critical of the administration, former press secretary's new book stuns former colleagues, who accuse him of disloyalty and a lack of credibility.


Disappointed! Hehe! The WaPo is mocking the Decider on the front page.

Seems McClellan's tales from the crypt comes at an opportune time and might unleash a very unpleasant flurry of truth-telling and kick the WH smear-machine into overdrive. Bet they miss Rove right now like a junkie in withdrawl.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


The house of cards is crumbling. The propaganda machine is terminal. The truth is immortal.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I think McClellan knows a whole lot more than he's letting on and because of this, his life is in grave danger. Don't be surprised if someday soon, we wake up to the news that he died at his own hand but I can assure you, that this will not be the case at all.

It goes without saying that McClellan in effect committed career and political suicide by writing this "tell all" book and no one does that unless there's something BIG... and I mean HUMUNGOUS that's lurking around the corner that's less than a block away time-wise.

The fact is, even though it makes sense to us that someone like McClellan would want to somewhat distance himself from the Bush administration -- to do it to the extent that McClellan is doing it now speaks volumes in terms of just how little we actually know at this point in regards to information that's been kept from us and is yet to be revealed. I think it's going to be new information that we not only don't know about yet but it's going to be so horrendous, even Bush's most strident critics are going to be left in a complete state of shock when they find out about it.

The Bush administration has been operating within a culture of deception and secrecy. One does not have to have too much of an imagination to realize just how much damage a covert group like this can inflict on the world in a 8 year time span.

But the unfortunate aspect to all of this is the American people allowed it to happen due to their complete and total lack of interest in who and what has been running our country for the past 8 years. Heck, most people don't even bother to vote and it was only the active few who voted Bush and his cronies into office in the first place! But now the money-man's finally at the door and it's pay-back time but our pockets are empty and we only have ourselves to blame.

So Bush and Cheney have purchased land in Argentina? Hey! Isn't that where many of the Nazis escaped to just before WW11 ended? Talk about history repeating itself.. this is a case in point!

America has blood on its hands and it's too late for us to wash it off... it's too late.


[edit on 29-5-2008 by wang_ke_~]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
From this morning's AP story:


McClellan says in his new memoir that he came to realize that the war was sold with propaganda that inflated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. He says administration officials didn't deliberately lie — but they became wrapped up in trying to shape the story to their advantage, and ignored intelligence that didn't fit the picture.


I'm getting pretty sick of the extremely narrow definition of "lie" that the media has chosen to use. Or has been forced to use due to spin after spin after attack after spin. "Didn't deliberately lie" -- hogwash! That's a lie in itself!

"Shaping the story", parsing phrases to deceptively exclude any solid, verifiable factual statements, keeping information "in the bubble" -- those are lies! Razor-blade rationality can whittle away at the scope, but they're lies against any duty to the truth (oh so trampled and long-suffering), and -- most important for a monolithic media and elected administration -- lies against the public's worldview and their representative duties.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Last night (Wednesday, the 28th), McClellen's book had a segment on the NBC Evening News broadcast...Even Tom Brocaw had some time for commentary.


I didn't catch the whole segment (I caught it while rewinding a taped movie I'd finished watching...I don't normally make a point to try catching MSM programs, ya' know
) but they seemed to be concentrating on the period of time in which McClellen wrote about...More like, "let's see what history judges about it in the next 5 or 10 years," sort of thing.

IMO, by the time 5 or 10 years passes, the truth in the details will be "glossed over" to the point that the actual truth in the events will never be told again. As the old saying goes, "History is written by the victors," regardless of what the truth really was.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
AAAAHAHAHAHA...Now DESPERATE damage control is kicking in!!
Whitehouse Officials are 'Flat Out Angry', Calling McClellan 'Traitor', 'Benedict'

See what I mean? When a nation is run by criminals, then a "nation under laws" has no meaning.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am hoping to escape the USA....I'm think of emigratng to Australia.

Personally, I'd prefer Switzerland...They've always been staunch neutrals because Zurich holds a lot of purse-strings.

The main problem is that, the way the US economy has been over the past 20+ years, I'd have to win the lottery to make it to Switzerland...



Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The fact that Bush and Cheney are not behind bars is proof that the democratic system is broken. Why is no one talking about it? That's rhetorical, btw.

Democracy, as a system of government, carries its own seeds of self-destruction...Because it's based on public relations influencing "mob rule" & always degenerates into tyranny or fascism. The USA was never supposed to be a Democracy in the first place...Do you recall, in the Constitution, Article 4, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The main root of the USA's problems started when the greedy started influencing legislature to the point when the "laws" created started undermining the Supreme Law...In short, laws that are lesser than the Supreme Law started being held above the Supreme Law, therefore violating the Laws of Nature from which the Constitution was derived: What's that old saying, "Don't f--- with Mother Nature."

This is how we changed from a Constitutional Republic into a Democracy in the first place...Then it all spiraled downward from there. This is what made our government into a consortium of criminals...Those who violated the Law in order to change the system of government against their own legally binding vows!

[edit on 29-5-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


Yup like Thomas Jefferson says a democracy is 51% of the majority taking the rights of the other 49%. Thats why I find it laughable that the so called republicans are going around the world pushing democracy and not republics and not getting us back to a true republic. Just goes to show you that our government has no clue what the constitution says.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by wang_ke_~
 


wang, with ya all the way! Except, two points....the 'shrub', aka 'lil bush' was not really 'elected' in 2000. It was a complete sham.

Second, I think george and dick have land in Paraguay, not Argentina....could be wrong, though....Argentina makes sense, since all of those old Nazis are dying off by now......



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




wang, with ya all the way! Except, two points....the 'shrub', aka 'lil bush' was not really 'elected' in 2000. It was a complete sham.


Can you prove that? I think the States elected him quite fairly.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Here's
a decent article that explains what many people think, and another one here along with some comments.

Same author, but I included the second link because people have commented underneath the article.

It's not proof (as such) but it does highlight major concerns about the election.

[edit on 29/5/2008 by budski]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Even in a Republic 51% beats 49%.

If 51% of the states say "yes" and 49% say "no" yes is still accepted. Except for a few select laws that require a 3/4ths vote.

The minority have rights, yes. They don't have the right to trump the majority though.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Good read, one flaw though is that it's not solid proof. And aside from that, the people's vote is a suggestion to the state, in theory the state could vote the complete opposite of the people's desire. As the Federal branch is elected via State Electoral College. The intent of the founding fathers is not real clear, but it would appear that they meant for the state governments, not the people, to elect the Executive branch.

There has been cases in history where a state's vote was switched in spite of the vote.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


to ratify most laws in most states its a 2/3 vote sometimes 3/4 but generally 51 to 49 will not change laws. Thats how a republic is set up. 51 to 49 elects people.

For example your favorite Amendment the 16th amendment had to be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


No, as I said, not proof - but could it be seen as an example of media interference and spin to influence the decision and get people to accept it?

I think it could - but my view of the MSM is liable to influence how I see the articles they produced at the time.

There's also the issue of dis-enfranchised voters, for no particular reason, and the fact that bushes campaign manager was in charge of the count.

It all smells a bit funny to me - but I AM a hard core cynic about these things.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that Clarke's "assertions are deeply irresponsible and they are flat-out wrong." He also said Clarke's "past comments and actions contradict his current rhetoric when it comes to Iraq."

-----

"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?" Instead, McClellan said, Clarke "conveniently" released a book in the middle of the campaign season.


www.cnn.com...

LOL. Pot, meet kettle.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that Clarke's "assertions are deeply irresponsible and they are flat-out wrong." He also said Clarke's "past comments and actions contradict his current rhetoric when it comes to Iraq."

-----

"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?" Instead, McClellan said, Clarke "conveniently" released a book in the middle of the campaign season.


www.cnn.com...

LOL. Pot, meet kettle.






Vice President Dick Cheney said Clarke "wasn't in the loop" on major decisions and may hold a personal grudge against Rice.


Man if your press secretary or counterintelligence head is not in the loop then who the hell is. Vor I cant believe your buying the Bush rebuttal or maybe I am misunderstanding you. I agree it is a little hypocritical for him to come out now and say all this but better late than never it is seems like all Bush boys who leave are writing books and talking about how they plucked up. Bush wanted this war and he was going to have it and theres no ifs ands or butts about it an no evidence or anything else was going to stand in his way. Hey and we get to pay for it too.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


I'm not buying anything. I simply find his statements to be incredibly hypocritical when the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak, that he went out of his way to ATTACK a former Bush administration official for saying many of the same things back in 2004 that he himself now is.

Given this, the man's credibility is less than zero, IMO. He may be telling the truth, but if he is, he's as guilty as anyone.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


K i misunderstood you but I do agree the timing of this is pathetic. He could of brought this out while he was in office or right after. He wanted to make money on it.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Well actually it would be a valid point to say the Press Secretary did not have privy information.

He COULD say it was all made up propaganda, but then again I have never once heard of a Press Secretary being invited to sensitive intelligence meetings, war planning committees or really any meeting at all that dealt with anything important.

Their job is quite literally to be the mouth of the administration. And we all know the mouth quite often has no idea whats going on upstairs, and vice versa. could be Bush had a disgruntled employee he didn't know about.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join