I'm sure when FBI investigators finally get an inside source to turn over on his former organization and boss, they spend all day lecturing their new witness on how come if you thought all this was wrong you didn't quit or object to it all huh huh huh huh?

People ALL over the World know FOX (FNS) is a phony republican propaganda rag.

This is from Afric dot com.
Obama, Osama: Same
fight, According to Fox News

By Awa Traoré

What a joke! Listen to all the talking heads from the White House, " This isn't the Scott we knew." " He is a disgruntled employee." Not ONE of them is denying anything! Christ, it isn't as if we common folk didn't know this already. God, oh help us from these shills and their corporate masters!

the msm and the neocons are hanging by a thread. november we shall deliver the knockout blow.

Bush IS a uniter. He has taken all the fractious,squabbling terrorist units throughout the world and united them into one cohesive anti-American force . No small feat . And he ISN'T a divider . He only got a "C" in Math in high school.

You are right redcat, Both my father and I gave up on MSM. I myself am a c-span junkie. Just listening to the right-wing loonies talking on air almost makes me laugh, if it wasn't so sad. These people literally take everything they hear from Billo, Limpballs to heart. They are ( I hope) a dying breed.

I think it was right of George Bush to assume that if he admitted to mistakes in that famous Q&A the press would devour him. But he is wrong to assume that he doesn't deserve devouring. He has never been up to the job of being president

I guess mclellan was right in saying that fux is a friend of the whitehouse.

"....I mentioned Alberto Gonzales was a guy who got in a job way over, over his head ..."

Gonzo? Isnt it OBVIOUS whose name should be here?

Please make it stop. I can't take it, these people will never be honest with themselves or anyone else.

I think it's no wonder that the media is glad to pile-on Scott McClellan: he called them out too. Better for them to help the WHite House smear machine so that Americans aren't forced to re-evaluate the lapdog establishment media.

Byron York:

"There were some excruciating moments in the whitehouse briefing room..."
"...he was not a good spokeman..."

Byron, every moment watching you guys repeat the same talking points and lies is EXCRUCIATING! It doesn't matter who the spokesperson is.

ian @ 14:

I think it was right of George Bush to assume that if he admitted to mistakes in that famous Q&A the press would devour him. But he is wrong to assume that he doesn't deserve devouring. He has never been up to the job of being president

He's never been up to any job he had.

Liberal AND Proud @ 26:

ian @ 14:

I think it was right of George Bush to assume that if he admitted to mistakes in that famous Q&A the press would devour him. But he is wrong to assume that he doesn't deserve devouring. He has never been up to the job of being president

He's never been up to any job he had.

Exxon is making $1200.00 / second ... I'm sure they will thank him...

earl @ 28:

Liberal AND Proud @ 26:

ian @ 14:

I think it was right of George Bush to assume that if he admitted to mistakes in that famous Q&A the press would devour him. But he is wrong to assume that he doesn't deserve devouring. He has never been up to the job of being president

He's never been up to any job he had.

Clearing brush?

I'm listening to Scott McClellan right now on NPR and he is avoiding addressing the Jeff Gannon issue when asked directly about it. Now come on! If you can't come clean about planting male prostitutes in the press corp in order to get some reliable right-wing softballs, how can he claim to be coming clean?

Until someone produces some EVIDENCE of wrong doing all these people supposedly turning against the WH after they've left are full of crap and are just doing it for some money.

Its a fucking dance. Everyone knows they screwed up, so as they leave, the get to publish a book as long as no actionable evidence is in it, get paid, the Admin will speak out against them, life goes on, nothings changed.

Sheesh! All of these right wing neo-conmen need to make appointments to see psychiatrist. They're all sociopaths.

Filthy Harry @ 32:

I'm listening to Scott McClellan right now on NPR and he is avoiding addressing the Jeff Gannon issue when asked directly about it. Now come on! If you can't come clean about planting male prostitutes in the press corp in order to get some reliable right-wing softballs, how can he claim to be coming clean?

Until someone produces some EVIDENCE of wrong doing all these people supposedly turning against the WH after they've left are full of crap and are just doing it for some money.

Actually my favorite "press corps" moment was when FEMA told themselves posing as reporters that they were doing a "heckuva job" on the post Katrina disasters.

dosido @ 38:

Filthy Harry @ 32:

I'm listening to Scott McClellan right now on NPR and he is avoiding addressing the Jeff Gannon issue when asked directly about it. Now come on! If you can't come clean about planting male prostitutes in the press corp in order to get some reliable right-wing softballs, how can he claim to be coming clean?

Until someone produces some EVIDENCE of wrong doing all these people supposedly turning against the WH after they've left are full of crap and are just doing it for some money.

Actually my favorite "press corps" moment was when FEMA told themselves posing as reporters that they were doing a "heckuva job" on the post Katrina disasters.

Based on the way the real press operates I'm surprised they bothered.

What gets me is how fast the attacks have come against McClellan. I'm sure that most everyone in the White House and in the Republican Party for that matter knew of McClellan's book and had a good idea of what it is was going to be about yet they said nothing. If McClellan's book is pure fiction then they would have already dispelled it by now. The right wing spin machine is going full force after McClellan and there is word that the White House will block any attempts at McClellan testifying in front of Congress. My guess is that McClellan's book is accurate and really touched a nerve with his book and has the goods on the Bush Administration and they know it.

He actually writes in the book “I believe that by embracing openness and forthrightness, he could have, it could have redeemed him. It could have transcended partisanship and brought together leaders of both parties to try to consensus his way forward on Iraq.

See, I don't agree with that at all. Simply because the depth of incompetence and craven morality at all levels of the Bush administration was so profound... that the only way for them to survive was to practice complete self-delusion. Bully's in middle school don't go around contemplating the morality of punching the kid who's 100 pounds lighter than them in the back of the head for no reason... they just do it, and they are more than happy leaving all contemplation of that act the second they walk away from the act.

York just puts on his wonky glasses, styles his preppy hair, dons the square suite and tie and then goes on to self-importantly spout inanities on national TV. Guys like him have perfected the art of faking intelligence: dress right, talk in a measured, reasoned tone, maybe throw in a few quotes and nobody will notice that you took the short bus to grad school. Play your cards right and you'll get George Will's career - and George's money. Play your cards even better and you're Condi Rice.
York claims that McClellan was naive in thinking that Bush could have been a non-partisan uniter. York implies that the administration was forced to behave in the way they have because of the cutthroat, hyper-partisan nature of Washington. Did he sleep through 9-11? Bush had a 90%+ approval rating after 9-11 and that's not because he was doing such a good job. No, it was because the country WANTED to be united. Almost all Americans wanted a president who would put aside partisanship and unite the country against the common enemy. Unfortunately, for people like Rove, Cheney and York, the Culture War trumps all others.

"These is are the type..."

Is am they? I am are surpriseds!
LOLcat grammar. The new standard.

None of these shills contradict McClellan.

I mean he was not a terribly good spokesman...another person I mentioned Alberto Gonzales was a guy who got in a job way over, over his head

These dingbats might have a tiny shred of credibility if they ever said this kind of thing before the person turned or completely went down in flames.

To the owner of this site:

You're the Naive one if you think this guy isn't telling the truth. Anyone who looked at Bush's Texas record could see that he was lying about uniting the country and ending the partisanship. If people in his own administration can't believe they were duped when all the evidence they needed was out there, they deserve to feel like they were made a pawn.

ysbaddaden @ 17:

All this over-use of the term naive is

Naive.

Talking Points!

dosido @ 51:

Filthy Harry @ 49:

Doggiebobo @ 47:

Filthy Harry @ 32:
Need some help. Who are "all of these people who are turning against bush after they
left?" My recollection is that ONLY Scotty Mc has done so. Have you seen Gonzo,
Bolten, Rummy, H. Miers, Snowjob, P. Bremer(just to name a few) who have "turned
on bush?"

Tenet for one. That was a big one. I know there is one more, can't remember. I think Libby's books pretended to reveal some stuff but didn't either. But there will be a lot more. These people need 'bombs' to drop in order to drive sales but in the end nothing has actually be revealed.

Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke are two biggies.

remember, this is a book sale and they are all helping scotty sell books. when is it not about the money.

BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Appeasement Bullshit @ 58:

remember, this is a book sale and they are all helping scotty sell books. when is it not about the money?

For me the jury is still out on Scott's decision to go public in this way. I do think the media's self absorbed and defensive posture and the wingnuts club vitriolic response is quite interesting. I mean Scottie is getting the same treatment as this dude, Richard A. Clarke, who worked on counter-terrorism for years.

from wiki:

Richard Alan Clarke[1] (born 1951) was a U.S. government employee for 30 years, 1973 - 2003. He worked for the State Department during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.[2] Following the presidency of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton promoted Clarke to be the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council. Under President George W. Bush Clarke no longer had cabinet-level access, but continued in the same position until his retirement in January 2003, serving as a member of the Senior Executive Service, specializing in intelligence, cyber security and counter-terrorism.[citation needed] He was thus a part of the executive branch at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Clarke came to widespread public attention for his role as counter-terrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush Administrations when in March of 2004 he appeared on the 60 Minutes television news magazine, his memoir about his service in government, Against All Enemies was released, and he testified before the 9/11 Commission. In all three instances, Clarke was sharply critical of the Bush Administration's attitude toward counter-terrorism before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the decision to go to war with Iraq. Clarke has received criticism in turn for various reasons, including his strong disagreements with the Bush Administration.

my bold.

Samson- @ 59:

in other words: mcclellan and his msm pals are rewriting history and distorting the facts (again). mcclellan acknowledges that the admin mislead the public. BUT, instead of being honest as to why the public was lied to, he comes up with a real whopper: that the bush junta cared about democracy and that was the reason for Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).

blockquote>

really great and timely reminder!!! Scottie doesn't disapprove of Bush (oh no!) he disapproves of Rove.

So is FAUX news saying Joe was naive, because he was surprised at how the country was lied to and misled?

Isn't that just confirming what he said in his book?

Byron York just hanged himself with his own words. He's his own best counterargument.

That's the case with a lot these Rightie spinmeisters these days. Peggy Noonan, David Frum, Buckley (before he kicked the bucket), etc. They can't defend Bush, so they belatedly admit he was pigheaded, incompetent, less than honest and a dullard - after years of viciously smearing anyone who dared make the same accusations.

But they still stand up for Neocon ideology. Now the story is that Bush flopped because he wasn't a real conservative to begin with.

It's all so transparent. Fuck 'em all. Byron and his pals have a circle of hell reserved just for them.

And Yomama is running as a unifier of race relations, too.

Now you wanna talk about a joke......

Today, in the Washington Post, Novak wrote an opinion on his book...Read it, it will kinda open your eyes to his
narrow mind - lack of, and how they right is current and future, attacks on the print.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/01/AR200806...

harley @ 3:

I am uniter, not a divider was just a slogan. Who'd a thunk it?

Webster is so proud of that word!!!

'He's so naive. He believed what we said. What a schmuck'.

Annoyed Canuck @ 68:

Byron York just hanged himself with his own words. He's his own best counterargument.

That's the case with a lot these Rightie spinmeisters these days. Peggy Noonan, David Frum, Buckley (before he kicked the bucket), etc. They can't defend Bush, so they belatedly admit he was pigheaded, incompetent, less than honest and a dullard - after years of viciously smearing anyone who dared make the same accusations.

But they still stand up for Neocon ideology. Now the story is that Bush flopped because he wasn't a real conservative to begin with.

It's all so transparent. Fuck 'em all. Byron and his pals have a circle of hell reserved just for them.

Absolutely. They're all claiming that Chimpy isn't a "real" conservative-whatever that word means to the wingnuts. In their minds, the war was a good idea, but Bu$hCo. just fucked it up. Supply-side, trickle-down, piss on the poor Reaganomics is great but they just couldn't contain the spending part. Conveniently, they forget about the USA going from the world's largest creditor to largest debtor nation in history, with record debt, deficits, trade deficits, personal debt, all-time weak dollar, increase in the uninsured, higher poverty, huge and growing disparities of wealth, etc. These hacks sound just like the pseudo-intellectual supporters of the political system they made careers and billions of dollars fighting-Communism. "It was a great concept, it just wasn't implemented right. Just let us try once more!"

Mr. Byron York,

What qualifies anyone to be a "terribly good spokesman" for the Bush administration ? Your continued myopia about the blunders(/crimes?) perpetrated by the administration beg the following question: How could anyone have been a "good spokesman" regarding an administration that is intent on bending the truth and casting long shadows on their barbaric dealings with allies and foes alike (prior to Iraq - allies were pressured into going with our be-spectacled plans for desecration of Iraq) ?

Let me take the Abu Ghraib scandal for one. The main message coming from the Pentagon/White House dealt with the presence of "a few bad apples," when truly, as presented in 'Taxi to the Dark Side,' the directives for conducting systematic torture of potential high-value detainees was emanating from the top of the echelons of power. So, taking this fact to your line of reasoning (sic), it would mean that a "good spokesman" would have ... ? I am sorry, does this mean that the main mouthpiece of the WH should have pointed more fingers at .... ??? Attempting to wade through this half-assed dismissal of McClellan is pointless. WE NEED TO SUPPORT OUR ARGUMENTS WITH FACTS ! Fox News' pundits, as outlined by the terribly fun guys of the Institute of Expertology, have their positions assured not by credible reporting, but rather, a distinct loyalty to the Presidency of Georgie.

Hence, it would stand to reason, that once Hillary or Barack are elected, Fox News will suddenly relinquish their fortified stand against the unitary executive ??? Has anyone gone back to the late nineties to watch all those fools bemoan the over-reaching presidency of Clinton ? These people have their platform - it's too bad Fox has the word news in its title, but then again, BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobile are all environmental stewards, as presented in their marketing/PR messages... Has the world really gone mad ?

I would advance the following - as our world's resources are more and more coveted by a larger group of people (including non-Americans), the pressures on the government will become stronger and a group of incompetents running the office will not be an option we can live with. I could go on, but who cares, these people are total incompetents.

What a breath of fresh breath of air Byron York is. He admits that anyone who believes in anything the Republican Candidate says before an election is naive.

See Byron is being truthful when he says, in a round about way, is that the Republicans are liars from the start and if your believe them your stupid. Good for you Byron.

dennis @ 80:

Christopher Hitchens on which book to read to get the truth:

A Tale of Two Tell-Alls

'If you want to read a serious book about the intervention in Iraq, look to Douglas Feith'.

Which Hitchens would that be? The one who used to support the war or the new one who doesn't? The drunk Hitchens or the really drunk Hitchens?

jwf @ 85:

dennis @ 80:

Christopher Hitchens on which book to read to get the truth:

A Tale of Two Tell-Alls

'If you want to read a serious book about the intervention in Iraq, look to Douglas Feith'.

Which Hitchens would that be? The one who used to support the war or the new one who doesn't? The drunk Hitchens or the really drunk Hitchens?

Do you have a point? Who knows more about the situation in Iraq and the decision to go to war, you or Hitch?

And who do you think has a better grasp and insight into that same decision, Scottie McClellan or Douglas Feith? And of the two, which book should be discussed more?

FED-up in Texas @ 86:

Like I've been saying... Scottie turned on Bush because HE WAS LIED TO. That's what gives him all the credibility in the world, and I hope he makes a million dollars while he spills all his dirty little secrets about the inner sanctom of Bush's White House. He's not showing his naivety, he's treating Bush like the skumbag-Texas-crook-politician he's been all along.

scotty is making money off the book and making more because of the continual publicity. his meme is false and it's being sold under the guise of the repudiation of the shills.

FED-up in Texas @ 86:

Like I've been saying... Scottie turned on Bush because HE WAS LIED TO. That's what gives him all the credibility in the world, and I hope he makes a million dollars while he spills all his dirty little secrets about the inner sanctom of Bush's White House. He's not showing his naivety, he's treating Bush like the skumbag-Texas-crook-politician he's been all along.

"nuff said." We've had enough lying from this WH.

dennis @ 87:

jwf @ 85:

dennis @ 80:

Christopher Hitchens on which book to read to get the truth:

A Tale of Two Tell-Alls

'If you want to read a serious book about the intervention in Iraq, look to Douglas Feith'.

Which Hitchens would that be? The one who used to support the war or the new one who doesn't? The drunk Hitchens or the really drunk Hitchens?

Do you have a point? Who knows more about the situation in Iraq and the decision to go to war, you or Hitch?

And who do you think has a better grasp and insight into that same decision, Scottie McClellan or Douglas Feith? And of the two, which book should be discussed more?

Hitchens is a perfect example of the expression "a broken clock is right twice a day". He has squandered whatever credibility he may have had as a reporter and is now opportunistically capitalizing on his culpabiltiy in selling this bullshit war through his own gullibility and/or willful ignorance because he's now arrived at the conclusion that everyone of us who opposed this war back in 2002 already knew. As for Douglas Feith, Tommy Franks called him the dumbest fuck on the planet. He is a pseudo-intellectual neo-con with zero credibility with the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands. As for McClellan, his motives are far from pure, and he's not telling us anything we didn't already know about these sick fucks. Just because you choose not to believe it doesn't make the rest of us wrong.

Scott McClellan was clearly a terrible liar...extremely uncomfortable with lying from the podium. Compare that to Snow, who couldn't wait to get up in the morning to lie with glee, or compare that to Perino, who hasn't a clue what is real and what isn't. Clearly those 2 are doing a much better job as defined by York, a first-rate private-sector liar.

Given Bush's temperament, and given that their seemed no one in the Whitehouse who would have been able to articulate a cohesive argument to admit wrong doing and go on; I think the statement is correct..... McClellan was very naive.

Samson- @ 98:

jwf @ 85:

dennis @ 80:

Christopher Hitchens on which book to read to get the truth:

A Tale of Two Tell-Alls

'If you want to read a serious book about the intervention in Iraq, look to Douglas Feith'.

Which Hitchens would that be? The one who used to support the war or the new one who doesn't? The drunk Hitchens or the really drunk Hitchens?

no, not either of those hitchens....

he is referring to the ever-condescending, besotted, pickled, and soused hitchens...

and dennis' shilling for douglas feith is simply hilarious. i am sure feith appreciates someone actually defending his self-besmirched honor (not that he had/has/will ever have any).

Back in 2005, I saw a clearly hammered Hitchens making a drunken spectacle of himself on C-Span trying to defend the war. He was in favor of it, now he's against it. As for Feith, he's a soulless, phony academic. He must have gotten the shit beaten out of him a lot as a kid, and now he's going to make the rest of us pay.

I will swear not only to uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God.

Rest of speech:

And then right after that, I will turn right around and surround myself with the minions of the devil who will use the constitution as toilet paper, wage illegal wars of aggression and place the values of the super-rich ahead of every living, breathing American who makes less than 400K per year. Lastly, right after I swear in on the good book, I will plunge our economy into huge deficits, run havoc over the environment and appoint my cronies to positions that they are ill-equipped to handle. God Bless America.

jwf @ 99:

Back in 2005, I saw a clearly hammered Hitchens making a drunken spectacle of himself on C-Span trying to defend the war. He was in favor of it, now he's against it. As for Feith, he's a soulless, phony academic. He must have gotten the shit beaten out of him a lot as a kid, and now he's going to make the rest of us pay.

Congrats, jwf. Some serious thought processes going on there. Hitchens is always a smart guy when he says something people like, like his views on Falwell and religion and the non-existence of a higher being. When he doesn't, he's a drunk. I never would've predicted that kind of a response from you. Or Rusty or Samson either for that matter. I'm totally surprised.

Well to be fair, anyone who thinks a GOP politician is anything more than a petty liar and a criminal is pretty naive.

Thanks Byron for admitting Bush had alterer motives from day one, that we couldn't take Bush at his word while running for office, that Bush's plan was to lie his way into power. Can we throw the bums out now?

Rusty Shackleford @ 94:

Is that the same Douglas Feith who Gen. Tommy Franks - an actual military expert, unlike Hitch - referred to as the "fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth"?

You know, Rusty, I went over to the sidebar here and put it Feith's name. Nearly every thread here had that quote from Tommy Franks in it in the actual blog post. I stopped after the fifth one. No one who would ever repeat it as the basis of an argument would consider themselves a shill, though. And scant few would add the caveat that they hold little regard for Tommy Franks other than that quote.

Don't let anyone ever tell you you're not on top of your game.
----------------
Hey, I like Hitch. It’s just that when it comes to sizing up Doug Feith, I trust Tommy Franks’ opinion more than Hitchens’ or yours.

And you obviously trust a weasel like McClellan more than you would Douglas Feith, no matter which book was more sourced and which one provided little in the way of hard evidence. All that matters is what you've read on liberal blogs and what your preconceived notions are. And I'm the shill.

dennis @ 109:

Rusty Shackleford @ 94:

Is that the same Douglas Feith who Gen. Tommy Franks - an actual military expert, unlike Hitch - referred to as the "fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth"?

You know, Rusty, I went over to the sidebar here and put it Feith's name. Nearly every thread here had that quote from Tommy Franks in it in the actual blog post. I stopped after the fifth one. No one who would ever repeat it as the basis of an argument would consider themselves a shill, though. And scant few would add the caveat that they hold little regard for Tommy Franks other than that quote.

Don't let anyone ever tell you you're not on top of your game.
----------------
Hey, I like Hitch. It’s just that when it comes to sizing up Doug Feith, I trust Tommy Franks’ opinion more than Hitchens’ or yours.

And you obviously trust a weasel like McClellan more than you would Douglas Feith, no matter which book was more sourced and which one provided little in the way of hard evidence. All that matters is what you've read on liberal blogs and what your preconceived notions are. And I'm the shill.

Can't quote Franks?

Can't quote Wilkerson?

How about Gen. Jay Garner on Feith: 'Incredibly Dangerous.'

How about Lt. Gen. DeLong on Feith: 'full of baloney.'

How about ME (after watching him on '60 Minutes'): 'the most dishonest, self-serving twat imaginable.'

That's just rich

The party that was faked out by Ahmed Chalabi

And believed that our troops would be greeted with chocolate and roses

Calling anyone naive.

"And, but Bush realizes, and he told McClellan, he said look if I name a mistake my enemies are just going to keep pushing for more and more and more."

There's a big difference between making mistakes and admitting them. Bush, as usual, is not capable of discerning the difference.

Most everyone on the planet knows that Bush's legacy will that he made one gigantic mistake after another. Everyone knows this is true eventhough Bush, because of his foolish pride and arrogance, won't publicly admit it.

ysbaddaden @ 113:

That's just rich

The party that was faked out by Ahmed Chalabi

And believed that our troops would be greeted with chocolate and roses

Calling anyone naive.

with extreme respect for your views, YSB, they were not naive. They were arrogant and vicious and shortsighted and spontaneous. they did not care to plan because the only objective was to exploit the situation to make money.

Oh yeah. Feith ran the stovepiping of intelligence from Chalabi and Curveball bypassing any form of vetting.
From Wiki:

Office of Special Plans

Feith led the controversial Office of Special Plans (OSP) at the Pentagon from September 2002 to June 2003.[45] This now defunct intelligence gathering unit has been accused of manipulating intelligence to bolster support for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.[46] According to The Guardian, "This rightwing intelligence network [was] set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force."[47] According to Kwiatkowski, the Office of Special Plans was "a propaganda shop" and she personally "witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president."[48][49] Senator Carl Levin, in an official report on the Office of Special Plans, singles Feith out as providing to the White House a large amount of Iraq-Al Qaeda allegations which, post-invasion, turned out to be false.[50] Disarmament expert George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told National Public Radio in 2004, "By all accounts, things in Iraq have gone very, very badly. Doug Feith should have been fired a long time ago for incompetence."[51]

dennis @ 109:

You know, Rusty, I went over to the sidebar here and put it Feith's name. Nearly every thread here had that quote from Tommy Franks in it in the actual blog post. I stopped after the fifth one. No one who would ever repeat it as the basis of an argument would consider themselves a shill, though. And scant few would add the caveat that they hold little regard for Tommy Franks other than that quote.

Next to helping engineer a war based on lies, the Tommy Franks quote is the second-best thing that Dougie Feith is known for. So you have to expect to see the quote pretty frequently when Feith is the subject.

Perhaps you know something about Tommy Franks' poor ability to judge character that you'd like to share with us?

Neo-classical secular humanist @ 122:

A little late to post, but who is this well-coiffed, straight-jawed piece of right-wing, neo-con drek and drivel? And who should give a shit?

The answer to both questions is "nobody."

thank you for not giving me another Cristol night.

This is another run of attacking the truth messenger.

the repugs attacks; chew; and spits at a GOPer.

Perhaps that is what many chicken dems and rubber stamp elephants are fearing. Telling the TRUTH to the AMERICAN people and the WORLD at large IS NOT part of the PARTY PLATFORM; it defy the agenda to maintain power at any cost.

Poor Scott. He's really not up to defending his own premise against unfriendly interviewers. Even a big dummy like Bill O'Reilly just chewed him up and spit him out tonight.

All O'Reilly had to do was throw the usual list of people and nation who all "thought Iraq had WMD!" You know the list; Kerry, both Clintons, the Director of the CIA, our allies, blah, blah, blah. So how could poor George W. Bush OR the national press corps refute that?

uh...Scott. Since the Congressional authorization was to use force against Iraq IF Iraq failed the inspection process and the inspectors were reporting to the world weeks before Bush invaded Iraq anyway that Hussein was NOT failing the inspection process and was, in fact, "proactively" cooperating with them...then it really doesn't matter WHO thought Iraq had WMD beforehand and, consequently, voted for those inspections or spoke out about Iraq having WMD and so on. Get it?

The only thing that matters is that Bush defied the Congressional authorization to use force by insisting on invading EVEN AFTER WE FOUND OUT from the inspectors there were no WMD or that Iraq was a threat to our national security.

Hell, even the Dixie Chicks knew in those weeks before Bush invaded anyway that Iraq was cooperating with the inspections and not failing them.

Like anyone at Fox has any credibility...