Bush's former press secretary says Bush misled U.S. on Iraq

[onlydarksets]

washingtonpost.com
Interesting statements by someone who was part of the machine for a long time. The excerpts quoted by the article explain some of the attitude the Bush administration has exhibited. I'm sure he'll be labeled a turncoat by the administration (which, I guess he is, technically).

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Interesting article. Thanks for the heads-up.

[djnemo65]

That's interesting because Washington reporters who were quite hostile to the Bush administration - I am thinking Dana Milbank in particular - always maintained that McLellan was a good guy caught an impossible position. Still stunning to see him take such a public stance on this though.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

That's interesting because Washington reporters who were quite hostile to the Bush administration - I am thinking Dana Milbank in particular - always maintained that McLellan was a good guy caught an impossible position. Still stunning to see him take such a public stance on this though.

He is just trying to sell his book.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by steveo395

He is just trying to sell his book.

He's obviously trying to sell his book but the problem is that other republicans with books to sell - Paul O'Neal, Kevin Phillips, Richard Clarke - have alleged the exact same things.

[dmek25]

like the vast majority doesnt know this already.

[SmootSmack]

McClellan has some kind words for Bush, calling him "a man of personal charm, wit and enormous political skill." He writes that the president "did not consciously set out to engage in these destructive practices. But like others before him, he chose to play the Washington game the way he found it, rather than changing the culture as he vowed to do at the outset of his campaign for the presidency."

This seems to be the case with many elected officials. Let's see if that changes with the next President.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

McClellan has some kind words for Bush, calling him "a man of personal charm, wit and enormous political skill." He writes that the president "did not consciously set out to engage in these destructive practices. But like others before him, he chose to play the Washington game the way he found it, rather than changing the culture as he vowed to do at the outset of his campaign for the presidency."

This right here is why I feel that GW2 is a rather unremarkable president.

Lots of the decisions he made, that people hound him for, seemed to be decisions of circumstance. A better man perhaps would have gone beyond the status quo, and made the less fundamental decision and would have produced better results, but GW pretty much was the run-of-the-mill decision maker.

We've seen better, we've seen worse, and we will probably have worse in the future. That's my official position on the Bush Administration.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This right here is why I feel that GW2 is a rather unremarkable president.

Lots of the decisions he made, that people hound him for, seemed to be decisions of circumstance. A better man perhaps would have gone beyond the status quo, and made the less fundamental decision and would have produced better results, but GW pretty much was the run-of-the-mill decision maker.

We've seen better, we've seen worse, and we will probably have worse in the future. That's my official position on the Bush Administration.

Couldn't have said it better. Bush the president was average in most respects. Good in a few respects and awfule in a few others. I don't think he is a bad guy but I think his admiistration was a joke. He had power mongers who had no problem throwing him under the bus as they steered him off course. A stronger man could have prevented this. I don't fault him for that as much as I feel disappointed. I fault guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld who screwed up everything in the name of politics.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Couldn't have said it better. Bush the president was average in most respects. Good in a few respects and awfule in a few others. I don't think he is a bad guy but I think his admiistration was a joke. He had power mongers who had no problem throwing him under the bus as they steered him off course. A stronger man could have prevented this. I don't fault him for that as much as I feel disappointed. I fault guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld who screwed up everything in the name of politics.

Yeah I definitely think, from all I've heard and read, that Rumsfeld played a huge role in all this mess. More so than advertised. W's decision to essentially fill his staff with people who have been in the White House since the Ford administration was probably more so a curse than a blessing. I think it's important to have a mix of established people and fresh faces. Or he could have done like my man Ike and totally gone with outsiders.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Yeah I definitely think, from all I've heard and read, that Rumsfeld played a huge role in all this mess. More so than advertised. W's decision to essentially fill his staff with people who have been in the White House since the Ford administration was probably more so a curse than a blessing. I think it's important to have a mix of established people and fresh faces. Or he could have done like my man Ike and totally gone with outsiders.

rumsfeld almost single handedly f'd the whole thing up himself. the military and various civilian advisers who knew what they were talking about and had planned for the post war contingencies and logistics were completely (and i mean COMPLETELY) ignored, because he thought he was SOO much smarter than everyone else's combined intellect.

we had a plan, but the guy torched it so he could play it by ear. brilliant! i guess it's not that bad, i mean, it's not like those decisions cost large scale loss of life... oh wait.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This right here is why I feel that GW2 is a rather unremarkable president.

Lots of the decisions he made, that people hound him for, seemed to be decisions of circumstance. A better man perhaps would have gone beyond the status quo, and made the less fundamental decision and would have produced better results, but GW pretty much was the run-of-the-mill decision maker.

We've seen better, we've seen worse, and we will probably have worse in the future. That's my official position on the Bush Administration.

What B's GW has gone against the grain and the media for a ton of things that have brought his ratings down just because he thought it was protecting the US. Do I really need to start naming them. There everyday in the news for the past 6 years or so.

[dblanch66]

Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Whig, Tory...doesn't matter. Bush sucks as a president. I don't care how much of a "good guy" he is, he was our worst president besides Hoover. I'd rather have a president who's an asshole as long as he or she knows how to run the country with forsight, intelligence, tact, diplomacy, creativity, toughness, open mindedness and humility. None of which George Bush possesses.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Whig, Tory...doesn't matter. Bush sucks as a president. I don't care how much of a "good guy" he is, he was our worst president besides Hoover. I'd rather have a president who's an asshole as long as he or she knows how to run the country with forsight, intelligence, tact, diplomacy, creativity, toughness, open mindedness and humility. None of which George Bush possesses.

I wasn't alive for Hoover but I was for Jimmy Carter and all the adults around me were ready to revolt if he had been reelected. There's no way he would have survived a second term. He was positively reviled. Also, Bush will not face an impeachment hearing which is something Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson couldn't say. In addition, James Buchanan, who was an homosexual, allowed the country to slip to the brink of civil war, so your history is off.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

McClellan has some kind words for Bush, calling him "a man of personal charm, wit and enormous political skill." He writes that the president "did not consciously set out to engage in these destructive practices. But like others before him, he chose to play the Washington game the way he found it, rather than changing the culture as he vowed to do at the outset of his campaign for the presidency."

This seems to be the case with many elected officials. Let's see if that changes with the next President.

This is a very important statement in my mind. For me it begs the question, who of the upcoming presidential candidates, if any, have the "balls" to change the culture of the White House, rather than just go with the flow? Because I'm not entirely sure there are any candidates that would stick with their policies as they said before they became president.