Rep. Wexler questions McClellan about CIA leak case

steve k · #11 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

But, in the end, Steve, who do you think has been more dishonest as a President, GWB or Clinton? And whose dishonesty has cost this country more in terms of both human and monetary capital? The Clinton thing was embarrassing, but, in the end, that's really all it was. The Bush thing....well, I don't think anyone knows what this will end up costing us, the Iraqis, etc.

Well the question becomes "Do I feel that Bush lied purposely or do I believe that he was given the wrong information?" I believe the latter because if you believe that Bush lied purposely to get into war in Iraq then Bush would have been able to get Clinton/Gore, the UN, the CIA, FBI England, France, Germany, Poland, Greece, The Netherlands, Israel an a host of other countries as well whose intelligence all said the same thing about Hussein and his intelligence capabilities. So, did Bush mislead? Yes. Purposely? No.

Clinton's refusal (& Bush 41, Regan & Carter before him) to effectively deal with terrorism set the stage for where we are today. People tend to forget that the WTC was attacked for the first time in 1993 and there was no response really. Same with the Cole, embassy bombings etc... Had Clinton done something concrete then we would certsinly be further along than we are now.

Whether Clinton was lying over a blow job or a parking ticket matters little in my book. He was the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in this country and there are rules and laws that one has to follow. Clinton did not live up to those standards and while I could give a hit who he sleeps with or from whom he gets this or that from, I do care that he deliberately lied under oath because like any 3rd grader he didn't want to deal with the consequences of his actions. Under those guidelines, he should have been thrown out of office as a warning and a lesson that the nations laws are more important than even the President.

StormanNorman · #12 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve k

Well the question becomes "Do I feel that Bush lied purposely or do I believe that he was given the wrong information?" I believe the latter because if you believe that Bush lied purposely to get into war in Iraq then Bush would have been able to get Clinton/Gore, the UN, the CIA, FBI England, France, Germany, Poland, Greece, The Netherlands, Israel an a host of other countries as well whose intelligence all said the same thing about Hussein and his intelligence capabilities. So, did Bush mislead? Yes. Purposely? No.

Steve,

I would have like to have been a fly on the oval office back in 2002. See, this what I think, Steve. I don't think they necessarily misled us about the WMD. Most people...including myself...thought Iraq and Saddam had WMDs. I went through my series of anthrax shots when I was in the Gulf in 1999 and 2000. But, where I think they purposely misled us was based on the threat of the WMDs. You remember...."he's developed some of the worst weapons ever known to mankind" and "we don't want the answer to come in the form of a mushroom cloud," etc.

I strongly believe that they deliberately fear mongered in the wake of 9/11 to get this war....and they did it on purpose. They created what I call the "WMD boogeyman." Did I think Saddam had chemical and possibly biological weapons, yes (not much, but yes). Did I give shit? NO....and neither should you have or anyone else. That's where they were dishonest.

Quote:

Clinton's refusal (& Bush 41, Regan & Carter before him) to effectively deal with terrorism set the stage for where we are today. People tend to forget that the WTC was attacked for the first time in 1993 and there was no response really. Same with the Cole, embassy bombings etc... Had Clinton done something concrete then we would certsinly be further along than we are now.

In your mind, steve, what would you have done to effectively deal with terrorism during Clinton's, GHWB's, Reagan's and Carter's administrations? And what responses were you looking for after the Beirut bombing, Kobar Towers, Embassy bombings, 1993 WTC bombing, the Cole,etc.? I'm curious because I've heard many people on this board claim this, but what response did you want to see....and against whom?

And your last statement, steve....what should Clinton have done? And realize something, steve...in those days, the fight against terrorism was done behind the curtain so to speak....and not out in the open. I venture do say that there was more going on than you know. Now, we weren't invading, occupying, and bombing the shit out of people (accept on a couple of occasions), but that does NOT mean that we weren't doing anything. Terrorism is a crime, steve....and needs be dealt with as such 99% of the time. And that usually means relying on other countries' law enforcement.

Quote:

Whether Clinton was lying over a blow job or a parking ticket matters little in my book. He was the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in this country and there are rules and laws that one has to follow. Clinton did not live up to those standards and while I could give a hit who he sleeps with or from whom he gets this or that from, I do care that he deliberately lied under oath because like any 3rd grader he didn't want to deal with the consequences of his actions. Under those guidelines, he should have been thrown out of office as a warning and a lesson that the nations laws are more important than even the President.

I agree...Clinton did not live up to those standards. Should he have been impeached....I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. I believe (and yes I'm biased) that this Administration has been far more dishonest. Now, you are not going to get them on the stand....and that's just the way it is. But, at the end of the day, their dishonesty has cost this country far more than anything Clinton did....or didn't do.

LCOF · #13 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

But, in the end, Steve, who do you think has been more dishonest as a President, GWB or Clinton? And whose dishonesty has cost this country more in terms of both human and monetary capital? The Clinton thing was embarrassing, but, in the end, that's really all it was. The Bush thing....well, I don't think anyone knows what this will end up costing us, the Iraqis, etc.

I believe had Clinton treated the first attack on the WTC in ways other than an "illegal" action, then possibly the 9/11 would not have occurred. It was Clinton who proffered that Saddam had WMD, it was believed to be true by the world community then and leading up to the Iraq war.

The difference between Bush and Clinton is clear. Clinton relied on polling, to guide his leadership. Bush acted upon conviction of what was known at the time, and the knowledge widely accepted then.

You can disagree with Bush in going, and even the execution of the war. But to claim Bush acted illegally after the fact is just revising history.

Just as much as you could claim this is an "illegal war", I could respond this war may not have needed to happen had your guy been more focused on duty and not polls.

StormanNorman · #14 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LCOF

I believe had Clinton treated the first attack on the WTC in ways other than an "illegal" action, then possibly the 9/11 would not have occurred.

Well, LCOF, that's exactly what it was.....a crime. And many of those involved are now sitting in jail.

Quote:

It was Clinton who proffered that Saddam had WMD, it was believed to be true by the world community then and leading up to the Iraq war.

Yes, he did.

Quote:

The difference between Bush and Clinton is clear. Clinton relied on polling, to guide his leadership. Bush acted upon conviction of what was known at the time, and the knowledge widely accepted then.

I agree with you here......I just don't like relying on the convictions of a true believer. That will get you in trouble more often than not.

Quote:

You can disagree with Bush in going, and even the execution of the war. But to claim Bush acted illegally after the fact is just revising history.

I don't think it was illegal, LCOF. I just think we were
a) misled
b) and then made to watch an incredible inept administration fumble their way through the mess they created for about 4 years.

Quote:

Just as much as you could claim this is an "illegal war", I could respond this war may not have needed to happen had your guy been more focused on duty and not polls.

First of all, Clinton is not my guy....I don't play the politics game. And I'll ask you like I asked, steve, what should Carter through Clinton had done differently regarding terrorism? I include Reagan in there, too, LCOF....remember the Beirut Bombing in 1983.

steve k · #15 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Steve,

I would have like to have been a fly on the oval office back in 2002. See, this what I think, Steve. I don't think they necessarily misled us about the WMD. Most people...including myself...thought Iraq and Saddam had WMDs. I went through my series of anthrax shots when I was in the Gulf in 1999 and 2000. But, where I think they purposely misled us was based on the threat of the WMDs. You remember...."he's developed some of the worst weapons ever known to mankind" and "we don't want the answer to come in the form of a mushroom cloud," etc.

I strongly believe that they deliberately fear mongered in the wake of 9/11 to get this war....and they did it on purpose. They created what I call the "WMD boogeyman." Did I think Saddam had chemical and possibly biological weapons, yes (not much, but yes). Did I give shit? NO....and neither should you have or anyone else. That's where they were dishonest.

In your mind, steve, what would you have done to effectively deal with terrorism during Clinton's, GHWB's, Reagan's and Carter's administrations? And what responses were you looking for after the Beirut bombing, Kobar Towers, Embassy bombings, 1993 WTC bombing, the Cole,etc.? I'm curious because I've heard many people on this board claim this, but what response did you want to see....and against whom?

And your last statement, steve....what should Clinton have done? And realize something, steve...in those days, the fight against terrorism was done behind the curtain so to speak....and not out in the open. I venture do say that there was more going on than you know. Now, we weren't invading, occupying, and bombing the shit out of people (accept on a couple of occasions), but that does NOT mean that we weren't doing anything. Terrorism is a crime, steve....and needs be dealt with as such 99% of the time. And that usually means relying on other countries' law enforcement.

I agree...Clinton did not live up to those standards. Should he have been impeached....I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. I believe (and yes I'm biased) that this Administration has been far more dishonest. Now, you are not going to get them on the stand....and that's just the way it is. But, at the end of the day, their dishonesty has cost this country far more than anything Clinton did....or didn't do.

I will answer this thoroughly in a bit. I'm just busy with work right now.

Commissioner · #16 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Well, LCOF, that's exactly what it was.....a crime. And many of those involved are now sitting in jail.

Yes, he did.

I agree with you here......I just don't like relying on the convictions of a true believer. That will get you in trouble more often than not.

I don't think it was illegal, LCOF. I just think we were
a) misled
b) and then made to watch an incredible inept administration fumble their way through the mess they created for about 4 years.

First of all, Clinton is not my guy....I don't play the politics game. And I'll ask you like I asked, steve, what should Carter through Clinton had done differently regarding terrorism? I include Reagan in there, too, LCOF....remember the Beirut Bombing in 1983.

StormanNorman, you lay out a good case, but I always come back to one question that nobody seems to get together on: What was Bush's motive for going into Iraq? Hey, like Greenspan said, "It's about the oil." Duh. Yeah, of course oiul has something to do with it, but that ain't hardly th whol;e explanation. Hey, I knew this wasn't going to be a quick war. He and everybody else must have known as well. I'd like to hear why you think he tossed away any possibility of a positive legacy for the forseeable future?

Jetblast · #17 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Well the question becomes "Do I feel that Bush lied purposely or do I believe that he was given the wrong information?" I believe the latter because if you believe that Bush lied purposely to get into war in Iraq then Bush would have been able to get Clinton/Gore, the UN, the CIA, FBI England, France, Germany, Poland, Greece, The Netherlands, Israel an a host of other countries as well whose intelligence all said the same thing about Hussein and his intelligence capabilities. So, did Bush mislead? Yes. Purposely? No.

You might want to keep telling yourself this so you can believe it but it is pure bullshit and you know it.

The path of what you wrote leads directly back to people scurrying for likely excuses once it became clear that Bush was lying. The path of the war crime lies themselves have been clearly traced back to Bush and Cheney and their deceitful claims against Iraq - as many insiders have already told us (we didn't need those insiders).

The Republicans want a dirty government that the people are in contempt of because it lowers the public's expectation from government and allows to wolves freer reign. The whole idea of Fox News is a corporate fascist media that lowers standards and caters to itself and its interests above everything else while blaming others with higher expectations.

Bush deliberately mislead and anyone who says otherwise is a lying crook defying what is plainly evident in front of us in reality. The only way these people can operate is in dirty political wolf packs.

But the poster is dumb because whether the US President is given false information or not he is still responsible either way.

Commissioner · #18 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 03:15 PM

That pretty much summs it up. That jetblast is a complete jackass, that is.

If I you were ever being prosecuted in court, how'd you like to have this moron on the jury?

StormanNorman · #19 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commissioner

StormanNorman, you lay out a good case, but I always come back to one question that nobody seems to get together on: What was Bush's motive for going into Iraq?

Well, that's why I said I would've liked to have been a fly on the wall of the Oval Office back in 2002 to really know. What do I think? My logic tells me two primary reasons:
1) To transform the Middle East. Many in the political circles believe that terrorism is a direct result of both economic and political hardships and the lack of opportunity in both arenas....and to some degree, I agree with this. I think the Bush Administration really wanted to believe what Chalabi and other INC members were saying....that is, Iraq being probably the most "Western" country in the Middle East will easily and readily welcome a new, Western-style Democracy. And once established, these ideas would spread...and take hold in other parts of the Middle East.
2) A quick, decisive defeat of Saddam's Republican Guard would send a very strong message to other players like Iran and North Korea, e.g., you could be next.

I do think oil and future basing played a role, but were further down the list. I mean oil always plays a role...that's why we care so much about the ME in the first place....otherwise, it would be like Burma.

Quote:

Hey, like Greenspan said, "It's about the oil." Duh. Yeah, of course oiul has something to do with it, but that ain't hardly th whol;e explanation. Hey, I knew this wasn't going to be a quick war. He and everybody else must have known as well. I'd like to hear why you think he tossed away any possibility of a positive legacy for the forseeable future?

Honestly, Commish, I think they thought it was going to be quick and easy....I really do. That's why they were so unprepared for the phase 4 OPS. As far as a legacy goes, what if you were the one to bring lasting democracy to the ME? That legacy might even rival Reagan's...at least to those on the right-hand side of the aisle.

Commissioner · #20 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Well, that's why I said I would've liked to have been a fly on the wall of the Oval Office back in 2002 to really know. What do I think? My logic tells me two primary reasons:
1) To transform the Middle East. Many in the political circles believe that terrorism is a direct result of both economic and political hardships and the lack of opportunity in both arenas....and to some degree, I agree with this. I think the Bush Administration really wanted to believe what Chalabi and other INC members were saying....that is, Iraq being probably the most "Western" country in the Middle East will easily and readily welcome a new, Western-style Democracy. And once established, these ideas would spread...and take hold in other parts of the Middle East.
2) A quick, decisive defeat of Saddam's Republican Guard would send a very strong message to other players like Iran and North Korea, e.g., you could be next.

I do think oil and future basing played a role, but were further down the list. I mean oil always plays a role...that's why we care so much about the ME in the first place....otherwise, it would be like Burma.

Honestly, Commish, I think they thought it was going to be quick and easy....I really do. That's why they were so unprepared for the phase 4 OPS. As far as a legacy goes, what if you were the one to bring lasting democracy to the ME? That legacy might even rival Reagan's...at least to those on the right-hand side of the aisle.

Thankjs for the response Storman. I think you're right on with the exception the Bush adminstration believed this was going to be a cake walk. I remember before it even started people warning that this could go easily go ten years or so.

One thing I didn't realize, and I don't remember anyone makeing a particular big deal out of was how the Sunnis and Shiites. As thois thing as gone on one thing that occurred to me that the only people they hate more than us and Israel are each other. If you recall, the day the Sunnis blew up the Golden Dome was when all hell broke loose.