Obama: See no evil?

If what McClellan says about Bush's motivation for war is true, he should be impeached. To think someone would build their legacy on the deaths of brave young warriors is obscene.

 

IMAO: Crackers for Obama

"It's quite obvious Obama has a cracker problem. Apparently, crackers just won't vote for him for whatever cracker reasons they have. That's something his campaign will have to work on, and I have some suggestions for Obama:

FRANK TIPS FOR OBAMA TO GET CRACKERS TO VOTE FOR HIM

* Don't call them honkeys. Crackers find that insulting.

* Change your name from the foreign sounding "Obama" to more familiar sounding "Alabama".

* Make sure there is plenty of mayo available at dinner fundraisers. Crackers love to slather everything in mayo.

* Learn to play the banjo.

* Use a pleasant tone of voice and don't make sudden arm movements so as not to startle the poor, dumb crackers.

* Don't make fun of their deeply held beliefs in front of rich people in San Francisco.

* Hand out free sunscreen at events so they can stay outside longer despite their pale cracker skin.

* If your preacher speaks at one of your events, ask him to insert some stuff about Jesus in his sermon so its not just all about how he hates crackers.

* Don't tell them they smell funny.

* Practice watching a dog run around in circles for hours so you can pretend to like NASCAR.

* Don't let it slip that you're secretly a Muslim. That'll scare the crackers!

* Tell them that though you're quite angry at them for making AIDS, you do admire how clever they are for that accomplisment.

* Make sure any music you play at campaign events has a pleasant melody so as not to make the crackers uncomfortable. And don't make fun of them if they start dancing.

* Try wearing a flag pin again. Crackers lover America for some strange cracker reason."

 

The article doesn't say Bin Laden has been crushed. Nor is it referring to Bush being the warrior. It is referring to McCain, not Bush.

Hittin' the bottle a little hard tonight, huh Zzzz?

 

Of course Bin Laden has not been crushed, that's the point, that the republicans and Bush lickers don't talk about the fact that Bin Laden runs free...

Unlike McBush, who is fixated on Iraq and its oil, staying the McBush course...Obama suggests putting the emphasis on finding and capturing Bin Laden...

McBush is still trying to win the war in Vietnam and purge himself from his personal shame of failure in Vietnam. So now he is fixated on "winning" in Iraq.

Pathetic old man...

 

Scott McClellan's Allegations Lack Credibility

By: Ronald Kessler, Newsmax

"If Scott McClellan’s allegations about President Bush sound as if he copied them from the editorial page of any liberal newspaper, there is a reason for it: As White House press secretary, McClellan was not privy to sensitive policy decisions and therefore has no specifics to back up his charges.

In “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” McClellan claims that the White House sold the Iraq war to the American people with a sophisticated “political propaganda campaign” led by Bush. He says it was aimed at “manipulating sources of public opinion” and “downplaying the major reason for going to war.”

McClellan says that he and his subordinates were not “employing out-and-out deception” to make their case for war in 2002. But he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush “managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.”

McClellan cites no details, and for good reason. McClellan was not invited to attend classified meetings where the decisions about going to war were discussed.

“The role of the press secretary does not have him in the most sensitive military and intelligence briefings that the president conducts with his national security advisor and secretary of defense,” Fran Townsend, the former White House counterterrorism chief who was at many of those crucial meetings, tells me. “So the facts and policy discussions he sees are limited.”

Instead of supplying specifics, McClellan makes sweeping allegations that contradict the underlying facts and therefore lack credibility.

First, Saddam Hussein’s own generals thought they had chemical weapons that they were supposed to use if the U.S. invaded. As recounted in my book “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack,” in secret debriefings after his capture, Saddam admitted to FBI agent George Piro that he was bluffing about having weapons of mass destruction. So it was Saddam, not Bush, who was engaging in deception.

Second, before the invasion of Iraq, Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum: leave Iraq or face war.

“He [Saddam] was given the opportunity to leave Iraq and go to live in Saudi Arabia and be very wealthy and very happy,” Piro told me. “The Saudis gave him the option. But what would that have done to his legacy? And if he were to have said ‘I’m bluffing,’ or ‘I’m not as strong as I present myself,’ where would he have then fit in the historical scheme of Iraq?”

Third, a public relations effort accompanies any White House initiative. One does not go to war without explaining to the American people the rationale for doing so. That effort may be called propaganda if it is an effort to deceive, but McClellan stops short of saying Bush was purposely deceptive.

McClellan claims Bush's real reason for invading Iraq was "an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom." In making that claim, McClellan seems to suggest that Bush himself did not consider Iraq a threat. McClellan thus ignores the fact that the CIA and every other intelligence agency in the world believed that Iraq had WMD and that former President Clinton, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton all said they considered Iraq a threat.

Townsend calls the allegations “self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional.” She says, “If Scott had concerns, he had an obligation to voice them at the time or even resign. He did neither. Even when he left no one had the slightest idea of any of these allegations. I knew him as a good White House colleague, and I find this shocking and disappointing.”

The bottom line is that, as Saddam told Piro, he was planning to resume his WMD program—including developing a nuclear weapon—within a year. That was when Saddam thought United Nations sanctions would be lifted, in part because he was paying off UN officials.

“His goal was to have the sanctions lifted,” Piro says in an account the media have largely ignored. “And they likely would have been lifted if it were not for 9/11. Even the United Nations changed after 9/11. So Saddam was on the right track. His plan to have sanctions lifted was working. But he told me he recognized that he miscalculated the long-term effects of 9/11. And he miscalculated President Bush.”

Unlike McClellan, who stands to gain by hyping the material in his book, Saddam had nothing to gain by lying. He knew he was about to be executed. Saddam’s own words confirm the wisdom of Bush’s decision to topple him. "

 

More evasion.

The article is not about Bush failing to capture Bin Laden. It is about which man, McCain or Obama, is more likely to want to negotiate with those who wish to destroy us instead of taking action against them. Obama is in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq and has stated he is willing to sit down and talk with the likes of Iran and Syria. Do you dispute this?

But since you've made this wild turn onto the Evasion Expressway, please provide quotes from McCain in which he states he does not want to find and capture Bin Laden.

 

The article is about Obama's point of view counter to McBush.

McBush is a pathetic old man living in shame of his capture and imprisonment in Vietnam, his surrender there, his failure to beat George Bush in 2000, and his desire to continue the failed and flawed war on terror and the mistake in Iraq.

Nothing but false pride of a pathetic broken old man.

<img src=http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/X/e/1/mccain_bush_brokeback.jpg>

 

LOL you're not seriously quoting Ronald Kessler and his Newmax.con as a credible source are you?

Good Grief...your desperation is showing..

 

blah, blah, blah....still waiting for you to provide quotes from McCain in which he states he does not want to find and capture Bin Laden as you have asserted.

*crickets chirping*

 

His actions tell the story.

All talk about Iraq, none about Bin Laden.

He is McBush, GW's butt boy...

<img src=http://www.electjohnmccain2008.com/images/bush-mccain.jpg>