AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Scott McCellan's book about the Bush White House

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 868
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 2:19 pm    Post subject: Scott McCellan's book about the Bush White House Reply with quote

What is your take on his book? Comments about the book and about Scott are quite interesting. Some see him as a turn-coat, others see him as an opportunist. For whatever reason he wrote the book, at least let's hope the veil over the Bush-Cheney White House will be lifted and finally exposing these criminals. I certainly hope to see some reprimands and possible prison time for some of the inhabitants of Bush world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2475

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, I'm irritated by all the hoopla about it. Most people have been, for some time, aware of or suspected what he supposedly "reveals." Labelling him "disloyal" as Bush adherents are doing is, I suppose, from their point of view, valid. I don't think there's any doubt publishing now will boost sales, so I guess he's opportunistic too. If he were truly as patriotic as he seems to want to portray himself, he would have spoken up a long time ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 868
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder if Scott feels that if he talks first, others will follow and will be willing to share their feelings as well. Not having read the book, did he suddenly feel this way or was he just doing his job? Maybe, it finally got to him and that's when he walked away. We do need to hear from others in the Administration in order to sort out the truths and lies. So hopefully others will feel empowered to do so as well.

Hope everyone has learned lessons from all this. I remember watching the 2000 returns when Florida was called for Gore fairly early in the evening. Then the channel switched to the Bush family where they were all staring daggers at Jeb(younger brother, Governor of Florida) looking at him like he had f**ked up big time. Then it was announced Florida was too early to call. From then on, Florida was total chaos.

At that moment, I had a horrible feeling and told my husband the fix was in. Florida was going to go for Bush. I could see it in the looks and body language of the entire family. It was a chilling sight. I honestly felt I saw democracy slipping away.

It's not that W is a Republican but that he has absolutely no respect for our government or our Constitution that bothers me so much about him and his Administration. Our democracy means nothing to him or his cronies who care only for the power.

There are just so many problems affecting our country right now. We need someone with vision who can lead us in a new direction otherwise we will soon be just another third world country. Why Hillary or Obama would even want to run for President is beyond me considering what they will have to deal with when elected. At least they are willing to run. I do see Obama getting the Democratic nomination though. He has the vision and I feel he can make a difference. But will old forces and bigotry keep him from getting elected?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2475

PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2008 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, you know, the Democratic primary is beginning to look a lot like the Gore/Bush election. How does it happen, for example, that Hillary got fewer delegates than Obama in Texas, yet won the popular vote? Why shouldn't the Michigan and Florida votes be counted fully? In the interest of fairness, I'd like to see what the delegate count would be if, like the Republicans, the Democrats used a "winner take all" determination. In fact, I don't see why primaries aren't all done on the same day, just as the national election is. Seems to me it would save money and time and reduce confusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guenevere



Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Camelot

PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
I'd like to see what the delegate count would be if, like the Republicans, the Democrats used a "winner take all" determination.


I believe Sen. Clinton would be far ahead (I think I read that). Not that I think "winner take all" is necessarily the fairest system, but it does at least mimic the general election structure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 868
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
Well, you know, the Democratic primary is beginning to look a lot like the Gore/Bush election. How does it happen, for example, that Hillary got fewer delegates than Obama in Texas, yet won the popular vote? Why shouldn't the Michigan and Florida votes be counted fully? In the interest of fairness, I'd like to see what the delegate count would be if, like the Republicans, the Democrats used a "winner take all" determination. In fact, I don't see why primaries aren't all done on the same day, just as the national election is. Seems to me it would save money and time and reduce confusion.


The Republican controlled Legislature voted to move the Florida primary up to January 29th so that's how it happened in Florida. The Republicans were also spanked for doing so and I do believe that the Republicans votes only counted half as well. They dealt with it and moved on. It became a real issue in Florida to Democrats and is still is. We felt we were being punished by the DNC over something we had no control over.

Obama stayed away from Florida as the candidates were asked to stay away. Hillary visited the state so did she not follow the rules? Would Obama have done better in Florida if he had campaigned here as well. Who knows? All I know is that we had a great turn-out on January 29th. I was at my polling place from 8 AM until 1: 30 PM. Then, in the later afternoon I was at another polling place and it was packed as well.

Having primary day all on the same day is interesting. Could work but I keep thinking about the money aspect of the campaigns. Elections, running for office actually helps drive our economy. The money it takes to win elections is staggering. So to make money off the system, I believe longer the season, the better everyone makes out so it's the way it is.

If we want to do real reform, lets change the system. I think limits should be set--Arizona is doing it. Why should it cost an arm and a leg to run for office? What happens is only the rich are running or those that will sell out to special interests gets the money.

It costs big bucks in Florida to run for office. You either have to qualify by a set number of petitions or you pay a fee to the county SOE office. In Florida, it's a percentage of the salary the office draws. So, you're talking thousands of dollars that has to be paid. If you are great at fundraising you can get the money easily. For other candidates who don't enjoy pimping for money, that qualifying fee is exorbitant. For this reason alone, good civic-minded people who would serve ably, do not run for office. Maybe we should do term-limits and draft the best and the brightest to run for office for a set limit of terms. They serve the interests of the people who elect them and then go back to being a regular Joe or Jane.

There has got to be a better way to get the best to serve.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
Actually, I'm irritated by all the hoopla about it. Most people have been, for some time, aware of or suspected what he supposedly "reveals." Labelling him "disloyal" as Bush adherents are doing is, I suppose, from their point of view, valid. I don't think there's any doubt publishing now will boost sales, so I guess he's opportunistic too. If he were truly as patriotic as he seems to want to portray himself, he would have spoken up a long time ago.


That's a pretty strong generalization. Most People? You've made an attempt to contact everyone in the United States and questioned them to determine that more than half know what he revealed? And suspected? Please. George W Bush has been blamed for everything, including the Great Flood (uh, the biblical one ... not the latest one in the Midwest).

How odd none of this information came out in 2006 when McClellan resigned his post. But, oops, if you don't write a good "tell all" book, where's the money?

A bit of a reminder ... making broad statements that include as the "truth" what you know because no one you know believes differently ....

Quote:
From Michael Novak, National Review:
As Pauline Kael once wrote, disbelieving the outcome of the Nixon-McGovern election of 1972, "Nixon can't have won; no one I know voted for him."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2475

PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

to LisaW: I still believe the statement to be accurate. I think most people knew rather early on following the invasion of Iraq, that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with intelligence about Iraq's capabilities; even prior to the revelation that no weapons of mass destruction or items of biological warfare had been found in Iraq there was wide reporting in most of the news media that intelligence had been skewed to a particular point of view. General terms, such as "tree," are as accurate as specifics, such as "birch," "oak", or "elm," for the term comprises all of those. Without generalizations, thinking would be nothing but chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
to LisaW: I still believe the statement to be accurate. I think most people knew rather early on following the invasion of Iraq, that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with intelligence about Iraq's capabilities; even prior to the revelation that no weapons of mass destruction or items of biological warfare had been found in Iraq there was wide reporting in most of the news media that intelligence had been skewed to a particular point of view. General terms, such as "tree," are as accurate as specifics, such as "birch," "oak", or "elm," for the term comprises all of those. Without generalizations, thinking would be nothing but chaos.


A reminder -- the US Congress saw the same intelligence. Not something the White House sent over, the same stuff. Even Hillary found reason to vote for the war.

Now, for a little bit more Al Gore vs George W Bush on Iran:

Al Gore chides President George Bush on Iraq and terrorism.

Uh, only problem? It's George H W Bush, it's 1992 ... and Gore is upset
Bush isn't taking note of those pesky little terrorists, WMDs and the
like, in Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2475

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure exactly what your point is. The subject of my post was the information that McClellan supposedly imparted. That Congress did NOT get the same information G.W. Bush got is what he writes about. It was only after Congress agreed to the war that the media began to publish whispers that that intelligence had been "skewed" to represent Bush's wishes. I think, by the time that McClellan published, those whispers had been heard by most people. Thus my comment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
I think, by the time that McClellan published, those whispers had been heard by most people. Thus my comment.


Ah, but what you posted was

Quote:

Most people have been, for some time, aware of or suspected what he supposedly "reveals."


Which implies more than whispers ... rather accepted knowledge.

First off, I still think Sadam had WMD ... in fact, WMDs were found in Iraq, some old, some new, but these were brushed off in the media as "oh, not much, only enough to kill a hundred thousand or so." Not sure just what the media considers "mass" ....

Secondly, Sadam was actively seeking WMDs. Truckloads of something were being shipped to Syria before US troops actually started rolling into Iraq. I think Sadam actually thought he had working goods up to the point he probably tried to use them ... and found out all he didn't. Would you want to be the one to tell "The Butcher of Baghdad" you didn't have the goods?

My point to all this was you made a statement that implied most everyone knows "Bush lied" which of course lead to "people died." There's an awful lot of people still floating around who saw Sadam as a menace growing in the Middle East. Not nutsies, not foaming at the mouths, but people able to see a world view that with the oil resources and funds Sadam could generate , he was a growing menace. And let's get real ... most countries who complained the loudest about the US entry into Iraq were the same countries who were completely bypassing the oil embargo, the "Oil for Food" and were just plain taking oil and profits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group