Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Bob Dole blasts Scott McClellan
Posted by: McQ on Friday, May 30, 2008

He also gets to the nut of the complaint by many find McClellan's type of book distasteful regardless of whose political ox is being gored:
"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

[...]

"In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you," Dole writes, recounting his years representing Kansas in the House and Senate. "No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years"

Dole assures McClellan that he won't read the book — "because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job"

"That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively," Dole concludes. "You’re a hot ticket now but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"
Dole certainly didn't mince words. And, of course he's right. His point about speaking out then vs. now is exactly why people like LTG Ricardo Sanchez - who did the same thing - are viewed with contempt.

It is amusing though to watch the left, which often characterized McClellan as inept, incompetent and just plain awful, suddenly embrace him as a breath of fresh air now that he's singing a tune they want sung.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"David Brock 2.0"

Can’t recall where I saw that yesterday.

Here’s where it differs, I think: the left will suck him dry like a locust husk, and that will be that. Unless, of course, he gets wise to the scam and signs-on, in which case he could have friends for life.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
See, this is why I wanted Dole to beat Clinton in ’96...

I do so like that man...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Who cares about McClellan’s loyalty or his motives in writing the book ?

Isn’t the real question, the one that noboby who has been singing the Bush Administration’s tune about this all week has even come close to touching, whether or not what he said, especially in reference to the propoganda campaign for and real motives behind the Iraq War is true ?

And if it is, then, frankly, that makes whoever orchestrated it, including McClellan if he was a part of it utterly contemptible.

For perspective, check out Peggy Noonan’s column today:

http://tinyurl.com/6cyqsr

As for Dole, this pretty much shows that he’s as cranky and mean-spirited as ever, and that we’re probably better off he never became President.

 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
Who cares about McClellan’s loyalty or his motives in writing the book ?

Isn’t the real question, the one that noboby who has been singing the Bush Administration’s tune about this all week has even come close to touching, whether or not what he said, especially in reference to the propoganda campaign for and real motives behind the Iraq War is true ?
So, the issue of his credibility never enters your mind, so long as he’s saying what you want to hear?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
So, the issue of his credibility never enters your mind, so long as he’s saying what you want to hear?
Isn’t that how it usually works?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Credibility is a different issue.

People like Bob Dole are attacking McClellan merely for the act of speaking out now with out ever considering the possibility that he’s changed his mind from what he believed when he served under the President.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
Scott,

Unlike others, I haven’t made up my mind about McClellan because I haven’t read the book yet.

Have you ?
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
Bithead,
So, the issue of his credibility never enters your mind, so long as he’s saying what you want to hear?
No, I’m waiting to actually read the book before making up my mind and not relying on the MSM or Bush Administration talking heads to think for me.

A radical concept, I know, but it’s worked for me in the past.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
People like Bob Dole are attacking McClellan merely for the act of speaking out now with out ever considering the possibility that he’s changed his mind from what he believed when he served under the President.
I don’t think that’s true Doug. McClellan states in the book that he felt Bush was a liar in the 2000 campaign when he didn’t answer some question dealing with cocaine use.

So, if that’s what McClellan felt, why did he go to Washington with him? Why not stand up and blow the whistle then? Or when this was all happening?

Because there’s no payback for him if he does. And of course, the higher he goes and the longer he stays, the better the payback.

Dole isn’t questioning what McClellan says, he’s questioning his integrity: " ... "because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job"

I’ve said it before, I’ll reiterate it now, integrity demands you stand on principle when called upon to do so. That’s not several years after the fact. What Dole is saying is McClellan failed the integrity test miserably.

Your point about the importance of what is said isn’t lost, Doug, but that doesn’t make Scott McClellan an admirable guy by any stretch, and that’s Dole’s and my point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Dole isn’t questioning what McClellan says, he’s questioning his integrity: " ... "because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job"
Well, Peggy Noonan makes the same point without sounding like the 80’s era Dole on steroids. The tone of the rant, which was clearly intended to be made public, is such that there really isn’t any reason to take the former Senator seriously.

McClellan doesn’t come out of this innocent, either, but it’s sort of pointless to point that out IMO. The fact that he might have been a coward for not speaking out sooner when he could have done some good may damn him, but it’s irrelevant compared to whether or not what he says is true.

And, honestly, Dole is the last person to lecture people about character. He wasn’t exactly known as the Mr. Sunshine of the Senate.

 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
No, I’m waiting to actually read the book before making up my mind and not relying on the MSM or Bush Administration talking heads to think for me.
That you’re reading the book at all, seems to me to be allowing the MSM to unduly influence your thought process. How else, after all, would you even consider it, but by listening to the constant drumbeat??


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
That you’re reading the book at all, seems to me to be allowing the MSM to unduly influence your thought process. How else, after all, would you even consider it, but by listening to the constant drumbeat??
Because reading a book is qualitatively different from reading what someone else tells me is in a book.

Using your logic, I guess I don’t need to go to the movies ever again. I’ll just read the plot summaries on Wikipedia.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
Unlike others, I haven’t made up my mind about McClellan because I haven’t read the book yet.

Have you ?
No I haven’t, because one of two things is true...

1) Either McClellan has only recently decided that he’s shocked an appauled by what went on and is looking to make a quick buck.

or

2) He felt this way all along, and had ZERO integrety as evidenced by his never speaking up or quitting before now.

Either one removes the book from my reading list.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
McClellan doesn’t come out of this innocent, either, but it’s sort of pointless to point that out IMO.
It isn’t in mine ... it is a credibility indicator. And right now, he’s in minus territory as far as I’m concerned.
The fact that he might have been a coward for not speaking out sooner when he could have done some good may damn him, but it’s irrelevant compared to whether or not what he says is true.
We’ll see ... you noticed how big a splash Ricardo Sanchez’s book made. He suffered from precisely the same problem McClellan does.

I’m not saying his book should be ignored or what he claims should be tossed off without being checked. That’s not the point of the post, as I indicated in the first sentence. The post voices the opinon of why "many find McClellan’s type of book distasteful regardless of whose political ox is being gored".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Using your logic, I guess I don’t need to go to the movies ever again
Oh, so you’re reading the book for entertainment.
I see. I’m sure Mr. Soros will be pelased to hear it.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Oh, so you’re reading the book for entertainment.
I am reading the book because it’s newsworthy and because I’m not afraid to be exposed to opposing points of view.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
I am reading the book because it’s newsworthy and because I’m not afraid to be exposed to opposing points of view.
Opposing points of view...

This book, if true, confirms the prevailing point of view of liberals, and many in the MSM.

So, what "opposing point of view" are you absorbing?
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Keith,

Does it matter ?

Are you now going to attack my character because I choose to read the book rather than remain willfully ignorant ?
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
Are you now going to attack my character because I choose to read the book rather than remain willfully ignorant?
No. But when you finish reading the book, checking the sourcing of his material, and establishing the credibility of those same sources, will you then come back and report to us what you found?

We’ll wait.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Umm, I was just asking a question, and I think I’ve made a valid observation of what the prevailing opinion vis-a-vis Bush and the war. Bush Lied is the popular saying among liberals and many in the MSM.

The biggest problem with reading this book to get the truth, is that you can’t learn the truth from only one book.

You have to read the counter arguments to what is said in the book. Those are probably going to be as or more important then what is actually in the book.

This book is only going to provide a particular viewpoint, of events in hindsight. So far, it sounds to suspiciously like innuendo and assumptions about what was going on behind closed doors, and to meetings and events Scott didn’t participate in.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
when you finish reading the book, checking the sourcing of his material, and establishing the credibility of those same sources, will you then come back and report to us what you found?
Considering that most of what he’s apparently talking about is first-hand information, what sources would satisfy you; secret recording of oval office meetings, confessions signed in blood by Bush, Cheney, and Rice, or maybe a time machine allowing the reader to go back in time and witness the conversation themselves ?

Considering the "sourcing" that the Bush Administration relied on in the months leading up to 19 March 03, I’m not sure that proof matters on this issue anymore.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
Let’s see - the President’s chief political adviser lies to McClellan about the Plame affair, and, in so doing, knows that McClellan will lie to the American public about the same. And Dole’s problem is with? McClellan, of course.

Miserable creature? That would be Dole. But then again, for Republicans, lying to the American public is no big deal.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Keith,

What counter-arguments would you refer me to ?

A bitter caustic screed from Bob Dole (whose relevance to politics in America ended in, oh about 1996 when he was nominated as the GOP canidate in a race he was dooomed to lose from the beginning) ?
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
mkultra,

If Bob Dole’s opinion were still relevant to anyone except Bob Dole, I’d care what he has to say.

 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
Keith,

Or maybe my sources should be the "intellectual" arguments of the Limbaugh/Hannity/Levin crowd.

There was a time when the most prominent conservatives (i.e., WFB) were actually reasonable rational people. Now that crowd has taken over.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
If Bob Dole’s opinion were still relevant to anyone except Bob Dole, I’d care what he has to say.
My, my.
And here, I thought you were open to opposing points of view.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Bithead,

I’m open to opposing points of view when they actually make a rational argument.

Dole’s email was anything but rational.

And I find it amusing that conservatives are flocking to Dole in this matter considering he’s anything but a conservative and he’s the same guy who led the GOP down the road to disaster in 2000. He got the nomination because he was considered "entitled to it" and proceeded to completely f**k up any chance of kicking Slick Wille out of office via the ballot box.

Seriously dude, do you really think he could’ve been a good President ?
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
I’m open to opposing points of view when they actually agree with what I already feel to be true.
Fixed that for you...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Scott,

Editing history ? Yea, that’s nice.

Tell me one statement of fact as oppposed to opinion Bob Dole made in his little email screed.

There are none.

He’s just a grumpy old man.

Why should I give his emotionally laden screed any more weight than I would give a similarly emotional screed from the likes of Rosie O’Donnell ?
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
OK, how about Rove himself?
COLMES: What about this specific charge that he’s claiming that you misled him about your level of involvement in the Valerie Plame case?

ROVE: That’s, that’s simply not true. I’m not going to add to the public record on this because there’s a civil lawsuit that the Wilsons have, and until that is resolved — they lost at the district court level, it’s on appeal, pretty confident that it’s going to be tossed out — but until that’s resolved, I can’t add to the public record.

But the fact of the matter is Scott’s questions to me were: did I leak Valerie Plame’s name, and the answer is no. In fact, we know today that the name of Valerie Plame was leaked to Robert Novak by Richard Armitage, the number two guy at the State Department, and not by me and not by Scooter Libby.

COLMES: He also says that after Hurricane Katrina, the White House, he quote, "spent most of the first week in a state of denial," and blames you for suggesting a photo of the president comfortably observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover and that, later, you were convinced that we needed — he said, we needed to do that and that there was...

ROVE: Yes.

COLMES: ...clearly feels an error.

ROVE: Well, first of all, he was not in any of the meeting that I recall discussing this. We were in San Diego.

We were flying back to Washington, D.C., and we faced a horrible, horrible choice, which was either have the president of the United States drop into New Orleans the day of the incident, diverting valuable resources, closing down the airport, diverting valuable resources from the immediate search and rescue, so that the president could be seen on the ground at the first moment or to fly deliberately north of New Orleans and not pass over it, in which case we’d be turning a blind eye.

And unfortunately the only option we really had was to fly over the city and look at it. If we’d landed we would have diverted valuable resources from the immediate efforts to save people’s lives, and that was simply unacceptable to the president.

And frankly, I don’t recall Scott being in a lot of those meetings that first week, so maybe that’s why he thinks we were in a state of denial. This was consuming a lot of time at the White House to make certain that all of the resources were available to Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and particularly Louisiana in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.

In fact, we got into New Orleans on Thursday about as early as we could come into the city without disrupting things, and as I say, I don’t remember Scott being in those meetings, and I certainly don’t remember him speaking out at the time to say these were his deep felt feelings.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Seems to me that Scott’s entire reassessment of his point of view has been caused by his own emotions.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Keith,

Again, until I read the book myself I am not going to comment on the merits of McClellan’s claims or Rove’s

But, you know, maybe I need to get into the habit of commenting about things before I actually read the book.

It would certainly make life easier. And it would make it easier to pigeon hole things into nice little ideological holes without actually having to think about them.

And I’m not quite certain why I should believe Karl Rove — whose personal and political biases are self-evident —- any more than I should believe Scott McClellan
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
Seems to me that Scott’s entire reassessment of his point of view has been caused by his own emotions.
Well, maybe when you come to the conclusion that you’ve been a complicit actor in a fraud you tend to get a little emotional.

I’m just sayin’
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
Seems to me that if what you ask someone is "Did you leak the name" and the answer is no, you shouldn’t be answering questions about whether the person had ANY role.

Seems to me, he didn’t really do due diligence in that particular incident.

As for most of everything else, it seems to be a rehash of liberal talking points. So, what new ground is being covered by this book?

Granted, all we have so far are 2nd hand accounts, but I’ve yet to hear anything ground breaking.

And I don’t know of one liberal talking point about the war, the leadup to the war, or Katrina, hasn’t been covered IN DEPTH, on this, or any other blog.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Keith,

So basically what you’re saying is that even if McClellan is telling the truth and the Bush Administration took us to war under false pretenses and without fully disclosing their neo-Wilsonian ideas for what American foreign policy should be (and, if they had, I submit, support for war would have declined precipitously), it doesn’t matter ?
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
So, what new ground is being covered by this book?
He’s charting new territory in the area of "personal wealth"...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Well, the issue of who was lying was pretty much settled in 1998 when Bill Clinton signed a law (passed by Demorats)that made getting rid of Saddam official US government policy, using the same arguments.

As for Scott McClellan, Sanchez, Shinseki, et al, they fit a very old pattern going back to the beginning of the Republic:

"I didn’t get the respect, perks, prestige, etc, ad nauseam, that I felt I deserved, so my personal revenge justifies betraying the country" — Benedict Arnold.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Scott,

I assume you would have said the same thing had McClellan written a hagiography about the great President that is George W. Bush.

Pardon any typos, it took several convulsions of laughter to write those last eight words.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
SDN,

That just proves that GWB was following the same dumb policy that Slick Willie had implemented.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
SDN,

How, precisely, is McClellan a traitor ?

Because he happens to disagree with the President ?

Last time I checked, no resident of the Oval Office is blessed with the infallibility of the Pope and, as far as I can tell, they’re only deserving of respect if they earn it.

 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
without fully disclosing their neo-Wilsonian ideas for what American foreign policy should be
Again, this has been covered here and elsewhere.

Freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal tyrant was one of the justifications for going to war with Iraq. Creating a democratic government in Iraq, was part and parcel of that justification.

These weren’t after the fact justifications, they were discussed before the war, and before the Congressional authorization for the use of force.

So, what are the false pretenses that they supposedly took us to war with?
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal tyrant was one of the justifications for going to war with Iraq. Creating a democratic government in Iraq, was part and parcel of that justification.
Why is it the responsibility of the United States to "free the Iraqi people" ?

How about "freeing" the North Korean people, the Syrian people, the Saudi people, and the Chinese people ?

Should we send Americans to die for them too ?

Last time I checked, the job of the President was to defend the United States, not become a worldwide crusader for democracy.

Somewhere, Woodrow Wilson, the worst President of the 20th Century, is smiling over the fact that Republicans have adopted his perverted, and failed, foreign policy ideas.

And cite me the speech where GWB told us we were going to war to transform the Middle East rather than protect America.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
Well, now we surely know WHY Dole never was elected president. Also, seems Dole has the same level of integrity that he accuses McClelland of because there have been many others who are no longer part of the Bush machine and we’ve heard their criticisms over the years and some were directly leveled at Bush too, but we heard nary a word out of Dole. Guess, OLD Dole wanted a ride on the Fix News media train too considering he has been rendered insignificant and especially for the upcoming election. Just wait, McInsane will be sure to get a photo-op with Dole.
 
Written By: Wiserone
URL: http://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox
I find it rather interesting though how the Bush propaganda machine kept using the word "perplexed" about McClellan when the book first came out, but then had to switch gears because it would seem if the White House is "perplexed" about WHO McClelland was doesn’t that give credence to what McClellan claims? That he wasn’t given information!! They made it sound initially that they didn’t even know the guy worked there. Duh!
 
Written By: Wiserone
URL: http://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox
And Bob Dole has any credibility? No, he doesn’t. Notice, however, that Dole doesn’t refute any of McClellans claims of fact. Dole is mad that somebody is being dis-loyal to the boy king who is currently squatting in our WH. Notice the facts don’t get argued, only the lack of loyalty - to a man, not to the country. Dole is a sick man. The country must prevail, not our grown up little boy Bush.
 
Written By: Fred
URL: http://
From what I’ve heard so far about the actual book, people might be buying it but unless it comes with an armed enforcer who goes home with you from the bookstore and holds a gun to your head, very few people will actually read it.

And f*** Peggy Noonan, whoever it was who brought her up. I’m so tired of reading her "while I’m just here rubbing Oil of Olay on my legs, let me tell you a few things" pieces at the WSJ that I’m trying to arrange some sort of electrical shock for myself if I even think of clicking open another one.

The funniest thing about this was watching just five minutes of Reichsfuhrer Olbermann interviewing McClellan and seeing Keith cringe as Scott said some very flattering things about Bush. Bush is the Reichsfuhrer’s own individual "Jew," you see, and as such Bush is too dirty to be complimented in his presence. His forebearance with McClellan must have been excruciating for him, so I hope that he really got Scott to tell him about the pubic hair on the Coke can(1) so that he could finally relax.

But I turned it off without getting that far because it was too pathetic to watch.

(1) Yes, I think that McClellan is the Anita Hill of the hour (mercifully, he will not endure in legend as long as Hill has), and the cocaine story is his pubic hair on the coke can.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
No, I’m waiting to actually read the book before making up my mind and not relying on the MSM or Bush Administration talking heads to think for me.

A radical concept, I know, but it’s worked for me in the past.
Yet in the meantime you don’t mind promoting the book’s talking points...

before...

actually reading it.

Hey, its like a mortgage, but for partisan hacks.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Jim,

Promoting how ?

By merely pointing out summaries of what he says rather than ignoring substance and cheering Bob Dole on while Bob Dole attacks ?
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
Unlike others, I haven’t made up my mind about McClellan because I haven’t read the book yet.
Considering that most of what he’s apparently talking about is first-hand information, what sources would satisfy you; secret recording of oval office meetings, confessions signed in blood by Bush, Cheney, and Rice, or maybe a time machine allowing the reader to go back in time and witness the conversation themselves ?

Considering the "sourcing" that the Bush Administration relied on in the months leading up to 19 March 03, I’m not sure that proof matters on this issue anymore.
It looks like you have already decided how you are going to take the book, regardless of you protestations to the contrary. You are just another Leftard following the Liberal Narrative to the letter.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I actually don’t think it’s unreasonable that McQ finds the book distasteful, and if he cared to look he’d find that the leftosphere is more villifying Scott for his complicity, rather than making him a retroactive hero.

There’s a degree of validity to the criticisms of his character, but I part ways with the suggestion that the book itself was wrong. Regardless of his lack of integrity in pedding cr*p, he’s burning a lot of bridges now and exposing himself to a lot of fire in coming out with these statements. He’ll be persona non grata to the Republicans and most conservatives. He’d probably have made more money jumping back into the political shark tank on K Street.

I think this is a good step on the road to recovery. And I think that anyone with a job description of "Press Secretary" is bound to, if he’s an honest person, have some serious inner conflict about his job requirements.

On a lighter note - it sure is fun trying to civilly disagree with the sweetly reasonable folk lurking under the bridge here, ain’t it, Doug?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
On a lighter note - it sure is fun trying to civilly disagree with the sweetly reasonable folk lurking under the bridge here, ain’t it, Doug?
Doug? His whole pathetic premise is that he can toss out as much of the book and/or talking points the book supposedly reinforces as he likes even though he hasn’t read it. But, we can’t criticize Doug’s points because we haven’t read it.

I shouldn’t be surprised that passes as "reasonable" to you.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Doug? His whole pathetic premise is that he can toss out as much of the book and/or talking points the book supposedly reinforces as he likes even though he hasn’t read it. But, we can’t criticize Doug’s points because we haven’t read it.

I shouldn’t be surprised that passes as "reasonable" to you.
That sort of "reasonable" is a new trend on the Left.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I actually don’t think it’s unreasonable that McQ finds the book distasteful, and if he cared to look he’d find that the leftosphere is more villifying Scott for his complicity, rather than making him a retroactive hero.
You mean his "complicity" in being manipulated by the publisher to write a "book that sells?"
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I actually don’t think it’s unreasonable that McQ finds the book distasteful ...
I don’t find the book distasteful. As mentioned specifically, I, like many, find that type of book distasteful for the reasons mentioned and regardless of whose political ox is being gored.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
So, Mr. Mataconis, have you read Douglas Feith’s book yet? I assume you will read that one first since it was published first and since you nobly refuse to make up your mind about things without reading the book. The added bonus is that Feith’s book makes actual factual assertions and backs them up with footnotes and source materials.
 
Written By: Zara
URL: http://
Jim,

No, my problem is with people who spend more time attacking people personally than addressing the substance of what they say.

That, after all, has been the entire focus of the talking points for the Administration since Tuesday.

Dole’s screed is particularly outrageous because he spends the entire email disparaging the man’s character and then releases it publicly.

The idea seems to be that if you spend enough time attacking McClellan’s character —- and there may well be a lot to attack there —- then it will make it unnecessary to actually deal with the facts of what he said and the truth about the last seven years, which is something Administration partisans and people who still support the war obviously don’t want to do.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
On a lighter note - it sure is fun trying to civilly disagree with the sweetly reasonable folk lurking under the bridge here, ain’t it, Doug?
Well, blog comment threads tend to be dangerous places sometimes and as speaking someone who cut his teeth on USENET boards in the 90’s it’s really pretty tame here by comparison.

I will note that I’ve asked a few substantive questions about the pre-war justifications for the Iraq War to certain people, and they’ve all neglected to answer them.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
I will note that I’ve asked a few substantive questions about the pre-war justifications for the Iraq War to certain people, and they’ve all neglected to answer them.
House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq, October 10, 2002.

Asked and answered. Any other questions?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
SShiell,

You mean the day that Congress completely caved and handed the Bush Administration carte blanche authority to launch a war whenever and for whatever reason it wanted ?

Not exactly a profile in courage, I agree

And not exactly consistent with Congressional responsibilities under Article I, Section 8.

The fact that Congress gave Bush authority to use military force without restraint doesn’t mean that either he or they were right to do so.

And doesn’t really answer my question.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
The fact that Congress gave Bush authority to use military force without restraint doesn’t mean that either he or they were right to do so.

And doesn’t really answer my question.
You don’t really have a question, but let me try to point you in the right direction.

In addition to the Congressional authorization to use force, the case against the Iraqi regime was the most thoroughly adjudicated case against a rogue regime in the history of the United Nations, which was principally founded to deal with exactly the sort of regime that Iraq had.

In case you’re interested, read UNSC resolution 1441 and its primary underlying resolution, 687, and then follow the reoccurence of 678, the original authorization by the Security Council for the use of force against Iratq. Note that it is specifically reiterated at the beginning of 1441.

Iraq had two strikes against it before 9/11: it was in multiple violation of its cease fire agreement with the UN (noted in 1441 as "continuing material breach") and it was arguably the most dangerous regime in the world (and we find out after the war that it had become internally incoherent even as it had connections to virtually every terrorist outfit in the Islamic world).

Strike three was that 9/11 caused a huge shift in geopolitical perception, where a rogue regime’s capacity and inclination to wage asymmetrical warfare became a top national security priority for the U.S. It was the Iraqi regime’s misfortune to be first on queue for enforcement—its case having been adjudicated under broad consensus by the UN Security Council over 12 years (1441 was passed unanimously).

But this is a thread about Scott McClellan’s book.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Martin,

You apparently accept the notion that American foreign policy should be guided by enforcing UN resolutions.

I think it should be guided by protecting America’s vital interests.

The two are not the same.
 
Written By: Doug Mataconis
URL: http://www.belowthebeltway.com
And doesn’t really answer my question.
So, besides the point that MM made that this is a thread about Scott McClellan’s book, what is your question?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
You apparently accept the notion that American foreign policy should be guided by enforcing UN resolutions.

I think it should be guided by protecting America’s vital interests.

The two are not the same.
I accept the notion that when the President is urged by the other party to take his case to the UN Security Council and then obliges the other party in that regard, and the Congress passes a bi-partisan resolution that includes, among other things, an authorization for the President to enforce certain UN resolutions, that the i’s have been dotted and the t’s crossed.

Now, you might be suggesting that U.S. foreign policy interests and the UN Security Council resolutions that the U.S. asked for and got unaminous approval for might not be in convergence, but there is no case for that.

Or you might also be suggesting that as the true opening act of asymmetrical warfare against the U.S., that 9/11 did not have direct national security implications for dealing with rogue regimes with the capacity and the inclination for engaging in asymmetrical warfare against the U.S., but there is no case for that either.

So, it comes down to the prudential judgment to either go ahead with regime change in Iraq or not, with all due pros and cons weighed. The Congress of the United States did that and gave the authority to the President to use military force. He used that authority.

When complications arose in the aftermath, which was always a possibility, the President remained steadfast but the other party began pointing fingers and ultimately declared defeat, in one case in the person of their leader in the U.S. Senate as he stood on the floor of the Senate.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider