Condi Tells Profiteering, Lying Douchebag To Kiss Her Black Ass
(Stockholm, Sweden ) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday rejected allegations from a former White House spokesman who says the Bush administration misled the American public into going to war with Iraq.
Clearly referring to charges made by ex-press secretary Scott McClellan in a new book, but said President Bush was honest and forthright about the reasons for the war. She also said she remained convinced that toppling Saddam Hussein was right and necessary.
“The president was very clear about the reasons for going to war,” she told reporters at a news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in Stockholm where she is attending an international conference on Iraq.
Chief among those reasons was the belief, shared widely before the war, that Saddam Hussein had or was developing weapons of mass destruction, Rice recalled, suggesting the international community shouldn’t have backed harsh sanctions against Iraq if it doubted the threat.
“I am not going to comment on a book that I haven’t read,” she said, referring to McClellan’s scathing memoir, “but what I will say is that the concern about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was the fundamental reason.”
“It was not the United States of America alone that believed that he had weapons of mass destruction that he was hiding,” Rice said, dismissing suggestions that the administration knew the intelligence was incorrect.
“The story is there for everyone to see, you can’t now transplant yourself into the present and say we should have know what we in fact did not know in 2001 and 2002,” she said. “The record on weapons of mass destruction was one that appeared to be very clear.”
Those who were skeptical should have spoken up at the time and argued against U.N. sanctions such as the oil-for-food program, she said.
“The threat from Saddam Hussein was well understood,” Rice said. “You can agree or disagree about the decision to liberate Iraq in 2003, but I would really ask that if you … believe he was not a threat to the international community, then why in the world were you allowing the Iraqi people to suffer under the terms of oil-for-food.”
The heart of the McClellan book concerns Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq, a determination McClellan says the president had made by early 2002—at least a full year before the invasion—if not even earlier.
“He signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest,” McClellan writes in “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.”
However, McClellan wrote that he did not believe Bush or the White House “deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people.”
McClellan says Bush’s main reason for war always was “an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom.” But Bush and his advisers made “a marketing choice” to downplay this rationale in favor of one focused on increasingly trumped-up portrayals of the threat posed by the weapons of mass destruction.
During the “political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people,” Bush and his team tried to make the “WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable than they were.” Something else was downplayed as well, McClellan says: any discussion of “the possible unpleasant consequences of war—casualties, economic effects, geopolitical risks, diplomatic repercussions.”
The White House responded angrily Wednesday to McClellan’s memoir, calling it self-serving sour grapes.
“Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House,” said current White House press secretary Dana Perino, a former deputy to McClellan. “We are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew.”
(AP)
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
whats sad is how ignorant and blind most of America has become, as we spiral out of control
May 29th, 2008 at 4:06 amThe buck stops with the one that put this little prick in a position that he was obviously unqualified to fill and supported a flawed and incompetent friend. I spit on the idiotcy of compassionate conservativitism and bipartisonship is appeasement!
May 29th, 2008 at 4:15 amThis might explain things.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30118_The_Soros-McClellan_Connection/comments/#ctop
May 29th, 2008 at 5:10 amRe: “He signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest,” McClellan writes in “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.”
However, McClellan wrote that he did not believe Bush or the White House “deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people.”
So. First Bush lied. Then, he didn’t lie. Which one is it? Only worms(DemoncRats) write(or edit) like that. It’s no surprise Soros is involved. What a moron.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:24 amIf Doughboy Scott is as concerned about the truth as he leads us to believe, why is it that he cancelled all his appearances on so-called right wing stations like FOX, but couldn’t get over to NBC (Neo Barack Community) fast enough to talk about his story?
I don’t have to know anymore than I do now to know that this Doughboy is a self-serving lowlife with a few connections looking to make a buck and a name anyway he can. Guaranteed he is a liar.
He got his feelings hurt, his mommy got bounced in the primary and now he’s lashing out. This will last one week before the left has buried it.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:58 amMCCLELLAN YOU ARE A WEASEL AND YOU HAVE NO HONOR!
See this is where I have a problem, if this guy was so twisted up about what he had to do day in and day out, why not resign and then go about screaming about what you find is wrong until waiting for what is three years since he was White House mouthpiece?
I could buy the courage of his convictions even if I don’t buy what he is selling if he had resigned and the next day started speaking out, this is America still and as long as there are libtards and moonbats amongst us he would still have an audience, plus his publisher is in cahoots withe Soros.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:02 amazbastard…I do agree that a lot of Americans are ignorant, however I don’t think most Americans are blind. Most people are too afraid to piss people off, they’re too afraid to offend. We’ve become a nation of panzies and tolerate EVERYTHING.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:48 amWell done Condi.
I am tired of the demedia pretending that nobody had a problem with Saddam until Bush 43 was elected. The whole world except the Islamofascists understood Saddam had to be ousted when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Bush 41 was excorciated by the demedia for not going into Baghdad and taking out Saddam and liberating Iraq during Gulf War I. Bill Clinton called repeatedly for the ouster of Saddam during his two terms as was reported extensively in the demedia. Even Ted Kennedy at the time admitted to the demedia Saddam had WMD. And how many enless (and useless) UN resolutions against Saddam reported in the demedia? And of course Congress had to have their 15 minutes in the demedia to publicly give their approval to go to war - which they did.
But I understand the democrats and their accomplices real motive in attempting to erase 15+ years of history of their backing to remove Saddam along with the backing of Bush 43 to go to war with Saddam. By disassociating themselves from the decision making to go to war they can admit the war was wrong with no political repercussions hoping their anti-war position will benefit them in the SHORT POLITICAL RUN. That would certainly explain their opposition to the surge and their eagerness to label it as a defeat even before the surge began.
The only thing which prevents many Americans from understanding this concept is the dems enablers/accomplices in the demedia who continue to assist the dems in rewriting history. Enter the latest….Scott McClellan.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:05 amMcClellan is a traitor and reminds me of every other left wing liberal in the Democratic party. Dirty little prick. Hope he chokes on the money from the book.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:20 amPat, I think that was your greatest headline yet, lol!!
May 29th, 2008 at 4:21 pm