Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
"The Bush Legacy" from the McClellan Chronicles
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 347738" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>I'm actually waiting on my copy as we speak although I've read some as my neighbor has it. From what I've read from various sections, McClellan still holds Bush in high esteem and in many areas he highly compliments the President. Scott talks about the man he knew as governor of Texas and how the continous campaign in Washington changed him and I can see where he has a point. I think no matter who gets elected, no matter their intentions, Washington will change them. The treachery of Rome are the chickens that have come home to roost!</p><p> </p><p>The one area that Scott is most critical is the Washington climate of continuos campaign which he believes causes or forces if you will for political adminstration to never admit they made a mistake. I mean, just look at us here to each other when we make a mistake (even an honest,innocent mistake) and then magnify that 1000 times and you've got a good idea of that climate in Washington. Your only option for survival is to stay the course, right, wrong or otherwise and if that means cooking, loading or whatever to the facts to support your position, then so be it. </p><p> </p><p>Just look back at the 90's with Clinton and his marriage failures. What would have been done had Clinton come forth and admitted his faults with all forthright and honesty? He'd have been crucified and there are some actions in the manner of law that are concerning, no argument, but it was never about fulfilling and honoring the law but rather getting a political advantage. His skirt chasing was the excuse and yes it was bad, no argument from me.</p><p> </p><p>In the 1990's after the republicans took over Congress, Clinton and Gore proposed a plan to privatize Social Security. What did the republicans do? They opposed it or rather blocked it because to let something like this go through and be successful would place a lot of political leveage with the democrats. A lot of the outspoken democrat opponents to Bush's plan in the 90's uttered not a peep of objection but when the issue and roles reversed after the 2000' elections, you might as well had these people in theater and had them change their Shakespearan masks as it was all political theater. </p><p> </p><p>In the 1990's, the republicans were the antiwar party so to speak and spoke often and hard against Clinton and his Balkans policy as nationbuilding and interventionist. According to the republicans, Nationbuilding was wrong and evil. <span style="color: red">BTW: take a long look sometime at the "NeoCon" policy wonks of the Bush adminstration back in the 1990's and you'll see full support for Clinton's policy and for him to even go further.</span> </p><p> </p><p>Bush, in the leadup to election in 2000' on many occassions spoke against Nationbuilding and a more "non-interventionist" foreign policy. But then abandoned those principles once he was in control but I do agree with Scott in that the polcy was more driven by those around Bush. Once they had Bush neck deep, he had no other course but to continue forth and justify the cause. Again, it's the continous campaign that is the culprit. Those democrat cheerleaders of 1990's nationstate and interventionism have themselves swapped masks with the republicans and are the voice of antiwar, anti-nationbuilding, etc. and it's silent partner the MSM (mainstreet media) has yet to utter a word of objectivity and ask the hard questions. All we get from them is a 30 second soundbite that boosts ratings and their advertising dollar revenue! They also can't afford to buck the system as they would lose access to the power players and this would leave other networks in a monopoly position and thus the corp. controllers would lose on their shareprice of their stock. Scott calls them to task as well and thus the media ain't to happy with him either. A discredited McClellan could clear the good name of the media so where do you think they land in all of this?</p><p> </p><p>Scott's book is not focused on the Iraq war as much as it uses the Iraq war as example to shed light on this Washington climate and that is IMO getting lost all this because of the climate itself. It shows the actions of persons inside the gov't and the lenghts they will go too in order to protect themselves regardless of the cost to the nation. I mean, look at what Clinton did in his own case everytime something else came to light. That's what Scott is trying to get at and I welcome the fresh air although politcal policy Scott and I would differ. Iraq is only a symptom not the disease itself.</p><p> </p><p>At this time, the point of Scott's book IMO is being overlooked but then in the political climate of Washington DC, what would one expect! As far as Scott's allegations in his book on Iraq. There's nothing really new here, he just confirms from an inside source what so many already knew and expected and it's not that earth shattering at all. Scott's bigger message is one that several have cried time and time again only to be drowned out and I'd expect the same this time as well. It's already started with all the focus on Bush and Iraq in order that we don't understand the greater point Scott was making.</p><p> </p><p>JMO.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 347738, member: 2189"] I'm actually waiting on my copy as we speak although I've read some as my neighbor has it. From what I've read from various sections, McClellan still holds Bush in high esteem and in many areas he highly compliments the President. Scott talks about the man he knew as governor of Texas and how the continous campaign in Washington changed him and I can see where he has a point. I think no matter who gets elected, no matter their intentions, Washington will change them. The treachery of Rome are the chickens that have come home to roost! The one area that Scott is most critical is the Washington climate of continuos campaign which he believes causes or forces if you will for political adminstration to never admit they made a mistake. I mean, just look at us here to each other when we make a mistake (even an honest,innocent mistake) and then magnify that 1000 times and you've got a good idea of that climate in Washington. Your only option for survival is to stay the course, right, wrong or otherwise and if that means cooking, loading or whatever to the facts to support your position, then so be it. Just look back at the 90's with Clinton and his marriage failures. What would have been done had Clinton come forth and admitted his faults with all forthright and honesty? He'd have been crucified and there are some actions in the manner of law that are concerning, no argument, but it was never about fulfilling and honoring the law but rather getting a political advantage. His skirt chasing was the excuse and yes it was bad, no argument from me. In the 1990's after the republicans took over Congress, Clinton and Gore proposed a plan to privatize Social Security. What did the republicans do? They opposed it or rather blocked it because to let something like this go through and be successful would place a lot of political leveage with the democrats. A lot of the outspoken democrat opponents to Bush's plan in the 90's uttered not a peep of objection but when the issue and roles reversed after the 2000' elections, you might as well had these people in theater and had them change their Shakespearan masks as it was all political theater. In the 1990's, the republicans were the antiwar party so to speak and spoke often and hard against Clinton and his Balkans policy as nationbuilding and interventionist. According to the republicans, Nationbuilding was wrong and evil. [COLOR=red]BTW: take a long look sometime at the "NeoCon" policy wonks of the Bush adminstration back in the 1990's and you'll see full support for Clinton's policy and for him to even go further.[/COLOR] Bush, in the leadup to election in 2000' on many occassions spoke against Nationbuilding and a more "non-interventionist" foreign policy. But then abandoned those principles once he was in control but I do agree with Scott in that the polcy was more driven by those around Bush. Once they had Bush neck deep, he had no other course but to continue forth and justify the cause. Again, it's the continous campaign that is the culprit. Those democrat cheerleaders of 1990's nationstate and interventionism have themselves swapped masks with the republicans and are the voice of antiwar, anti-nationbuilding, etc. and it's silent partner the MSM (mainstreet media) has yet to utter a word of objectivity and ask the hard questions. All we get from them is a 30 second soundbite that boosts ratings and their advertising dollar revenue! They also can't afford to buck the system as they would lose access to the power players and this would leave other networks in a monopoly position and thus the corp. controllers would lose on their shareprice of their stock. Scott calls them to task as well and thus the media ain't to happy with him either. A discredited McClellan could clear the good name of the media so where do you think they land in all of this? Scott's book is not focused on the Iraq war as much as it uses the Iraq war as example to shed light on this Washington climate and that is IMO getting lost all this because of the climate itself. It shows the actions of persons inside the gov't and the lenghts they will go too in order to protect themselves regardless of the cost to the nation. I mean, look at what Clinton did in his own case everytime something else came to light. That's what Scott is trying to get at and I welcome the fresh air although politcal policy Scott and I would differ. Iraq is only a symptom not the disease itself. At this time, the point of Scott's book IMO is being overlooked but then in the political climate of Washington DC, what would one expect! As far as Scott's allegations in his book on Iraq. There's nothing really new here, he just confirms from an inside source what so many already knew and expected and it's not that earth shattering at all. Scott's bigger message is one that several have cried time and time again only to be drowned out and I'd expect the same this time as well. It's already started with all the focus on Bush and Iraq in order that we don't understand the greater point Scott was making. JMO. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
"The Bush Legacy" from the McClellan Chronicles
Top