Runasim- I can see your point, because I overstated that. In the context though, you'll see that I was referring to whether or not the “lies and propaganda” to sell the Iraq War to the public will go down in history as something egregious or not.

I agree with you that there are other issues, other implications, that will all have to be sorted out as well. Of course I don't agree with the degree to which you feel they've already been sorted, and I have no idea what you mean by Bush's demonization corroding society (assuming you don't mean that the demonization of Bush is corroding people's ability to think clearly- I'd agree with you if that's what you meant!)

I couldn't disagree more. On the way to Iraq, what happened to the presidency, the justice department and the politicalzation of all branches of government will have a lasting impact, the magnitude of which will only become apparent with time.
We can't know now to what extent future administrations will be tempted to copy worst practices for the sake of power
We can see already how Bush's demonization of the opponents is corroding society at all levels.
Iraq is but a symptom,or an excuse,, depending how you look at it., of the myriad of things that matter much more, even when wars are fought.

We are now, and still, debating torture, for one
There is a lot that matters as much, if not more, than the war.

And I agree with you about FDR, and that all wars are sold to the public. If we had found the weapons of mass destruction, and won the war, Bush might have gone down as a hero instead of a goat. Or, if we had remained bogged down in battles fighting Hitler and Mussolini, FDR might have been vilified for exaggerating the threat,

Bush's problem is that now that we have been over there for going on 6 years, everyone is looking for whose at fault and examining how we became entangled in this mess in the first place. The difference is that FDR must have had some sense that the risk was worth taking in the first place, while Bush bungled the effort.

My point about McClelland isn't whether he was lying then or now- it's that we all simply choose to believe whatever fits our preconceived notion of the truth. We don't actually have any way of knowing how much is factual, but that doesn't stop people from either sainting or demonizing him to fit their cause.

McClellan may have served as a less than bright patsy for these guys, who is now profitting by ratting them out, but that doesn't mean he is lying now. He is only substantiating what has been suspected by many of us for a long time– that we were lied to, and that the administration ran the government in campaign mode- overpoliticizing national events, when they should have been uniting the country to face the mounting threats it faced.

Second, remind everyonw about the books written about the Clintons to further obfuscate and distract ..

Third, pick some random letters of the alphahabet, (BDS, PC, whatever) i to give the appearnce of having made an intelligent argument without actually doing so.
Always, chose appearnace over substance.

Last, copy and repeat on the next thread.
———————————————————–

Now that we have the customary formalities out of the way, some of us simply find the people in charge of our lives, the WH, very, very interesting.
The contrast between McClellan''s teary farewell from the great guys he worked for and this book arouses curiosity in itself.

My own contribution to pop psychology is that working in the thick of it is so intense that people lose perspective. It coudl be that they lose mental contact with normal life.altogether. Leaving must be a little like leaving a cult, in terms of intensity of feeling.

The de-programming period is not always smooth and may have overreactions ito the other extreme. Blaming starts, even when membership in the 'cult; was voluntary and a good deal of willful ignorance was at play.

If McClellan is capable of honest reflection, I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote a third book, perhaps in old age, accepting his own willing part in that which he now criricizes.

Thus, when it comes to McClellan's conversion, your question is completely off-base.

Remember, it wasn't those who questioned McClellan's credibility who have changed their position. It is McClellan who has changed his to one which comports with the view progressives have always held about the bush administration.

Time and time again, during McClellan's tenure, he was hammered with questions aimed at getting at the truth. McClellan responded with any of a number of the Administration's ludicrous talking points. No one was fooled. He was advancing a lie. Now that he is no longer lying, his credibility is enhanced.

Were it the progressives who changed their tune, perhaps your question would be legit.

Like you didn't realize you were lying to the press at the time?

I realize you're a gullible dweeb, you were hired by the Bush administration after all.

But no one is that gullible.

The Plame “Affair” was discredited so long ago that it's funeral in court is expected momentarily.

dave,
You mean the one that should have landed Scooter Libby in jail after he became a convicted felon? Oh yeah… nothing to see there.

You mean like Joe Liberman?

i was hoping to read about the jeff gannon led sex parties

lets see…we were lied to about the war…check

we were lied to about the plame affair….check

we were lied to about everything….check

uh, i know this

scott aint switchin sides…he just isnt a paid liar anymore

BDS is last year's big thing, and Scott missed the brass ring that earlier publication might have got him.

And why does a fellow with no credibility to the left suddenly gain credence when he cynically switches sides?