Condoleezza Rice discusses returning to Stanford

Her experience will be invaluable if we decide to invade Berkeley.

Bearing in mind that she will be indicted, with many others, for war crimes once the Bush regime is out of office, it would be quite embarrassing for Stanford. Couple that with the fact she has been the worst, most incompetent and most inept National security adviser and Secretary of State in US history, allowing her to come back would be a disaster. Her presence within a thousand miles of Stanford would be awful for an otherwise great university. Condi, we don’t want you, stay in D.C. where you belong, until they send you over to the Hague.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Put her in charge of the Children’s Theatre.

As usual, the hatriots and lefties are whining, and irrationally so. No surprise.

Condi Rice was an important element of the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the attack on al qaeda. So was Rumsfeld. Good for Hoover/Stanford for inviting them back.

what will condi go down for–in history-I, mean

There he goes again–our buddy Gary once again attacking anyone that does not agree with his dogma and/or criticizes anyone in the Bush administration as a “hatriot” or “leftie”.
I guess you should be honored, Gary is interuprting his “military training” (aka Memorial Day weekend, dungeons and Dragons tournament) to “address” your points in the manner he is so good at.
the only other thing that will tear him away from D&D are when mommy serves him his PB&J sandwiches with the crusts cut off of the bread.

Coulter loves Limbaugh,

You need to get a life. At least “Gary” makes rational arguments, and backs them up with defensible facts. I don’t agree with his use of the word “hatriot”, but he backs it up with his definition of it. You, on the other hand, make ad hominem arguments, which are tired.

If you cannot make a real argument, at least spare the rest of us from you complaints.

Condi was not very popular her first time around in the Stanford administration (I know because I was there). She may be interested in returning, but I think she will get a rather cool reception from everybody outside the Hoover Institute.

Dr. Rice would bring the Super Bowl to Palo Alto.

We already had a super bowl wally-
in case you forgot-
but don’t fret- many elders begin to “lose it”
like yourself- first the mind- then the body…
perhaps condie could simply come and be your
permanent house guest- she could help you with
your online postings- when she’s not baking you
your favorite cookies- oatmeal raisin-
she’s so sweet!

Accepting Condi the war criminal back in our community would be an insult to all the civilized residents of this area and diminish us as a progressive community. It would be the equivalent of allowing a Tim McVeigh to settle here. Stanford, please sever all ties with this awful woman.

I am so proud that there are women of Dr. Rice’s caliber and courage. I am impressed that she is coming back here, and impressed that Stanford is showing the kind of courage academic diversity which is lacking in most of the rest of the nation’s universities.

Dr. Rice, as I have already noticed, you never let the nutcases of America, or those abroad, such as hamas, hezbollah and al-qaeda, intimidate you. I am sure you will continue to have the necessary courage. And, any students you have in your classes will be lucky to have you.

If you ever offer a class through the Continuing Studies program for people not actually in Stanford University, I will be there.

Thank you for all your hard work on behalf of America.

Jack–this forum is open to anyone,with any opinion. If you do not like my comments about Gary, then skip them. I am sure that Gary does not need you to defend him.

Coulter loves Limbaugh,

“I am sure that Gary does not need you to defend him.”

You finally made a rational statement. Good for you. I may even deign to respond to your comments, in the future, if you keep up the good work. However, try to inject some defensible facts into your opinions, if only to humor me.

Dear Sir: Miss RICE is the best State´s Secretary the Union ever had. I´m in Argentina. After being cronical student of laws and political science here. Having a previous admiration before Henry KISSINGER. Sure this woman, best of the best, is the natural sucessor in every kind of political consideration among any future administration. As Mr KISSINGER could be, and still being.
Maybe, Why not…? Miss RICE could run for the Presidency of the Union. Why not …? With Mitt ROMNEY, or some other hard minded mormon to complete the formula of the future.
GOD BLESS AMERICA in … OUR … Memorial Day of 2008.
Yours. Esteban Atilio PEÑALOZA. DNI 12.639.909. Mormon LDS 014-0262-1068. P.S.: Read The Book of Mormon.!

Gary–I will agree with your comments about BBQs and car races and Memorial Day–although I do not support the war in Iraq and disagree with the Bush/Cheney/Rice dogma, I do support our troops. I think you can even agree that there is a difference between not supporting the war and supporting our troops.
Fortunately we are not seeing the vilification of soldiers that occured during Vietnam war.
I think we need to do a better job taking care of the troops that come home injured. THE VA scandal is not another dark moment for Bush/Cheney.

Getting back to the original discussion on this thread. Of course Rice will return to Stanford–she has nowhere else to go–no university will touch her, she cannot run for political office–she has no choice but to come back here and hope that her image will be rehabilitated in the future. Let’s face it, she may have been a good Eastern European strategist, but she was clearly out of her league with the Arab world.
But she gave Bush what he wanted, loyalty and blind worship.

If recent reports of trends in religious observance prove to be correct, then in some 30 years the mosque will be able to claim that, religiously speaking, the UK is an Islamic nation, and therefore needs a share in any religious establishment to reflect this….

At all levels of national life Islam has gained state funding, protection from any criticism, and the insertion of advisors and experts in government departs national and local. A Muslim Home Office adviser, for example, was responsible for Baroness Scotland’s aborting of the legislation against honour killings, arguing that informal methods would be better. In the police we hear of girls under police protection having the addresses of their safe houses disclosed to their parents by Muslim officers who think they are doing their religious duty.

While men-only gentlemen’s clubs are now being dubbed unlawful, we hear of municipal swimming baths encouraging ‘Muslim women only’ sessions and in Dewsbury Hospitals staff waste time by turning beds to face Mecca five times a day — a Monty Pythonesque scenario of lunacy, but astonishingly true…

The point is that Islam is being institutionalised, incarnated, into national structures amazingly fast, at the same time as demography is showing very high birthrates…

Today the Christian story is fading from public imagination, while Islam grows apace.

Strange to witness one of the oldest and most successful of nations commit suicide without even being aware of what it’s doing.

Coulter loves Limbaugh,

Yes, absolutely, we should be taking care of our vets who were wounded in battle. The advances in battlefield medicine, and evacuation, have improved their chances of survival and recovery. However, some will never recover fully, or even partially. They deserve our full support.

The VA system does a good job, in general, but it is in a very tough situation, because it is subject to bogus claims, and it must make a judgement in each case.

Besides our vets, and our soldiers, I would hope that you, and others, could honor their sacrfices by acknowledging their success, namely the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, even if you don’t support the effort. You don’t need to agree with a war, in order to recognize its success.

Our vets and soldiers deserve that, at least. Their sacrifice was not in vain, and they should be honored for it.

sarlat,

Just as I thought you were starting to gain control…then you spew forth with more hatriot venom. That’s not nice. However, I will bank it for future use.

Memorial Day is not actually a day to pray for U.S. troops who died in action but rather a day set aside by Congress to pray for peace. The 1950 Joint Resolution of Congress which created Memorial Day says: “Requesting the President to issue a proclamation designating May 30, Memorial Day, as a day for a Nation-wide prayer for peace.” (64 Stat.158).

Peace today is a nearly impossible challenge for the United States. The U.S. is far and away the most militarized country in the world and the most aggressive. Unless the U.S. dramatically reduces its emphasis on global military action, there will be many, many more families grieving on future Memorial days.

The U.S. spends over $600 billion annually on our military, more than the rest of the world combined. China, our nearest competitor, spends about one-tenth of what we spend. The U.S. also sells more weapons to other countries than any other nation in the world.

The U.S. has about 700 military bases in 130 countries world-wide and another 6000 bases in the US and our territories, according to Chalmers Johnson in his excellent book NEMESIS: THE LAST DAYS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC (2007).

The Department of Defense (DOD) reports nearly 1.4 million active duty military personnel today. Over a quarter of a million are in other countries from Iraq and Afghanistan to Europe, North Africa, South Asia and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. The DOD also employs more than 700,000 civilian employees.

The US has used its armed forces abroad over 230 times according to researchers at the Department of the Navy Historical Center. Their publications list over 60 military efforts outside the U.S. since World War II.

Al Qaeda is in retreat in Iraq? There wasn’t any before the US occupation, it’s a problem we have created. Bin Laden is certainly laughing some place while continuing to make those tapes. He was trapped in Tora-Bora and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld allowed him to escape…possibly because they were implicated in the 9/11 and were afraid he would be caught alive. Bush/Cheny made us more hated and despised around the world than any country since Nazi Germany, and created more enemies for the US than all previous administrations combined. We are less safe than ever because of those traitors and war criminals. Little Condi was a brown nosing minor accomplice.

Neither the German or French heads of states are “pro-Bush”, they were elected for domestic reasons that are entirely unrelated to Bush. There are no “pro-Bush leaders anywhere in the world, he’s despised universally. AQ is being kicked out of Iraq by the Sunni who were never fundamentally religious and who were victimized by AQ which established a presence in Iraq because of the Bush/Cheney occupation. More and more Sunni war lords and tribal leaders are threatening to cooperate with AQ against the American occupation if the Shiite government continues to shut them out.
If Bush/Cheney weren’t implicated in 9/11 they wouldn’t have allowed OBL to escape Tora-Bora and the Bin Laden family to flee the US on 9/12/01 while preventing any FBI investigation of those Bush family friends.

Only insane ditto-heads are in denial that Bush/Cheney are traitors and enemies of the USA.

Ms. Royal, Sarkozy’s opponent sounded much like the hatriots that post here:

“After all, she said during the campaign that she would never kneel before Mr. Bush the way she suggested her opponent had done. She tried to tar Mr. Sarkozy as an imitator of what she called Mr. Bush’s phony compassionate conservatism. She even told a Hezbollah lawmaker in Lebanon last December that she agreed with him when he talked about the “unlimited dementia” of the Bush administration.”

( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/world/europe/07cnd-france.html?ex=1336190400&en=96f6c3c3179b6dd3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss )

Sarkozy was openly pro-American, even though he would not have sent troops to Iraq. The French voters were quite well aware of his feelings of warmth towards Bush.

Guess who won?

A Boomer,

It almost sounds like you are still smarting over the defeat of that silly petition at Stanford…you know, the one that attempted to suppress free expression of Rumsfeld and the Hoover Inst.

If Stanford wants to enhance its history dept., it should get rid of Bernstein, and replace him with Rice (or Rumsfeld). Neither of the latter would dare to make statements about the paucity of potential casualities of an invasion of Japan, in WWII, like Bernstein did. They both have street cred, and Bernstein is a fluff piece. Stanford lefites, and their sycophants, like yourself, are in no position to judge liberators like Reagan, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney. The lefties at Stanford have spent their lives appologizing for and supporting socialist totalitarians.

Condi will bring a breath of intellectual freedom, and acuity, to Stanford. Good for her.

A Boomer,

First let me say that I appreciate your concern about my energy expenditures. I can only say that my opponents are like putty in my hands, thus it is like doing wrist and forearm exercises, something I prefer to do, compared to long distance running or stationary cycle. Actually, I still like sex better than any of the above!

OK, you ask about Condi’s intellectual heft. The truth is, I don’t know. She was more of an administrator at Stanford, before she joined the liberation movement, with GWB. However, I am confident in saying that the intellectual heft of those who tend to lead the charge against her (e.g. Bernstein) is very low. What do you think about Bernstein?

The topic is the Secretary of State, and her fitness to come to Stanford after the Shrub Adminstration ends.

The name Bernstein means nothing to me, and my sources at Stanford are people I know and talk to who are her former colleagues and are themselves regarded well for their work. She is not well regarded, for a variety of reasons.

There are places for people with her experiences and predelictions. I don’t see a position on the Stanford faculty as one of them.

I know nothing about Bernstein, and cannot base my observations about Condi Rice with regard to what he has said. Big place, Stanford, my amnesia generally applies to things that my wife finds I forget about matters domestic.

Nice try Gary. Naming names does not work that way. I do harken back to a conversation I had with someone in the international relations department a few years back, where there was a shaken head, and a comment that some in that deparrment don’t really quite understand what had become of her.

The topic is if she is fit to be part of faculty at Stanford after completing her time in the Shrub Administration. Methinks not.

I am backing away from a characterization that you make up but cannot attribute to me? I did not use the words intellectually deficient, let alone assure you or anyone else of such.

I did assert that she is not fit to be part of Stanford faculty. Lack of academic rigor and integrity, and peers who will not support her on such measures. Evidence being the last 7 years while working for the USG.

There is no dispute about her inate intelligence. It has more to do with intellectual integrity.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Obviously, no member of the Bush-Cheney regime can be allowed to be part of Stanford anymore than a member of the 3rd Reich can. let’s boil down the idea of Condi returning to Stanford to 2 words:HELL NO.

Come on, Gary. You are claiming the VA mess has to do with false claims?? Will you never criticize or accept criticism of the Bush administration? This is a monumental screw up–the terrible treatment of returning vets is scandalous, but not surprising, considering the Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney/Rice did not feel the need to send in properly prepared and armed troops to Iraq to begin with. Remember Rumsfeld’s comments about going to war with the army you have? Remember families having to buy armor for the troops themselvas and send it to them. remember the “hillybilly” armor to fortify vehicles in Iraq becaus ethey were not properly armoured?
the treatment of our troops by the gang of 4 above has been despicable. Too bad Bush’s daughters couldn’t stop partying long enough to serve their country–maybe then we would have gotten some respect for our troops by Bush. The gang of 4 has seen our troops as disposible commodities. Shocking and revolting
I realize Bush made a sacrifice by giving up golf, but he and his stooges need to do more for our troops.

“the treatment of our troops by the gang of 4 above has been despicable”

Coulter Loves Limbaugh,

If that’s true, then the military should have voted against him in 2004. Further, the military should vote against McCain in 2008. As I recall, it was the Dems who did not want miilitary votes, from overseas deployed, to be counted in FL in 2000. Are you suggesting that the military will vote for Obama in 2008?

The VA system has been under criticism, as long as I have been alive. Same old complaint: It doesn’t treat all vets the way they want to be treated. My father is a WWII combat vet. He has friends from that war who were wounded, and several of them continue to complain about the VA, as they always have.

Rumsfeld went with the army that Clinton left him. It seems that the “peace dividend” was not spent on up-armoring, or even body armor. However, given your concerns, will you support a major increase in the military budget…just in case Obama wants to send the army he has into a foreign conflict?

As to my adoration of Bush, I don’t think so. However, I do support his liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Two major countries in the middle of Islam, becoming free to express their individual wills, is a stake in the heart of al qaeda. I also think that Saddam needed to be taken out. GWB lead they way, and I do respect him, very much, for doing so. Most of my arguements, on behalf of Bush, are about his war policies, not his domestic policies. For example, I disagree with his stance on stem cells.

BTW, I would like to commend you for starting to make some rational arguments. I like to argue with rational people, instead of the run-of-the-mill hatriots.

Gary–I did not make the “you adore Bush comment” (for the record).
The military vote has nothing to do with how the military has been treated by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice. Much of this, especially the VA issues, have come to light since 2004 anyway.
ALso do not blame Clinton for the military that Rumsfeld inherited. rumsfeld had plenty of time to get the military in shape once he took charge. Plus Bush was the president and as Truman said, the buck stops with him. There was no real rush to invade Iraq–no weapons of mass destruction etc and once we were in Iraq it is clear that the entire mission was bungled, leading us to the situation we are in now.. Meanwhile the gang of 4 let Bin Laden escape.
The gang of 4 has treated the military very shabbily in all respects. If the threat to the US was so great, the gang of 4 should have instituted a draft, focused our industries towards getting the military properly outfitted and insuring that the Bush daughters were the first in line at the draft board.

Shame on them.

“The liberation of Iraq”, that’s a good one. 3.5 million refugees, 1.5 million dead and wounded. Even now, most Iraqis say they were better of under Hussein than they are under the US occupation. And who the hell gave the US the right to change regimes at will in the first place?
Gary, you are a grotesque Bush sycophant, part of the 27% of deadenders who still support the shrub. Very much like Joseph Goebbels who fanatically supported Hitler in that fetid Berlin bunker while Germany was collapsing above them.

Coulter,

The invasion of Iraq was put off…by Clinton. Saddam laughed off many UN decrees. Clinton was not a war time president. He was like Carter.

One the things lefties like to do is to insist that Bush, Cheney, Powell, Hillary Clinton, et al lied about Iraqi WMD. Could you please provide some examples of such lies?

My reaction to the possibility of Rice renewing her association with Stanford:no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no way, end of story.

Cracks me up…accusing Condi of being an “intellectual lightweight”..when if there were any honesty at all in these folks they would be rejecting Obama as an empty suit.

Did you all hear the latest comments from his Memorial Day speech?

Goodness..to think this ..person…wants to be in charge of our military?

BTW, I have to LAMO also at the belief that we are the most militarized in the world. I guess someone hasn’t been learning too much about PERCENT of annual budget spending on the military in …CHINA….ANY DICTATORSHIP….RE-EMERGING RUSSIA…

We are not the most militarized country in the world. We are the biggest policemen, the ones everyone calls when they are in trouble, then spits on when their financial interest is threatened by us helping another country out ( anyone remember who the top 2 countries were that benefited from Saddam?? Oh yes..the 2 biggest anti-invasion countries, Russia and France!)

Try to think a little bit folks. Hate in, hate out.

Coulter,

I was only able to open your first link. I didn’t see any lies. Could you point one out to me?

Bush/Blair and teams told it like they saw it. Turns out they were wrong about stores of WMD. However, Saddam did his best to make everyone think he still had them (as a posture against Iran, apparently). He certainly had had them, and had used them previously. The only way to be sure was to invade. The UN (Hans Blix) fiasco, following the first Gulf War is testament to that fact.

BTW, I am always curious about how the left would paint a picture of the world, if, say, Obama was elected in 2000. Assume the 9-11 attack happened (unless, of course, you think that diplomacy with al qaeda would have prevented it). What is your concept? I am not trying to trap you on this one…serious question. However, please avoid trivial answers like “Anything would be better than Bush!”. Give it a shot, Coulter.

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.

There’s no doubt that the full truth is a thousand times more criminal and obnoxious. “Propaganda” means fraud, lies and deception, “misleading” means bold faced deception of the White House press corp, etc. Speaker Pelosi ran out of excuses as to why she won’t initiate the impeachment process. Condi was part of that cabal of those Über-criminals. She belongs in prison, not in the faculty of a great academic institution.

“Why were they allowed to leave when the all American planes were grounded?”

Bin Laden, maybe it was because the USA was, understandably, upset with that happened on 9-11, adn there was a sober attempt to get them out of here, before they got hurt. The Bin Laden family has not been shown to be responsible for its wayward son. In fact, that family is part of a major construction firm in the Middle East, and it has been highly critical of Osama…not good for business.

“Bin Laden, maybe it was because the USA was, understandably, upset with that happened on 9-11, adn there was a sober attempt to get them out of here, before they got hurt. The Bin Laden family has not been shown to be responsible for its wayward son. In fact, that family is part of a major construction firm in the Middle East, and it has been highly critical of Osama…not good for business.”

This statement above is totally illogical.

This was all after they had already left the U.S. How did the U.S. know of their denouncement merely hours after 9/11? They should have been detained and questioned.

I wonder why the U.S. hasn’t been able to capture or kill Bin Laden. I can only imagine the headlines – U.S. kills son of Bin Laden family, the family of a construction firm in the Middle East. Sorry about your son, though we let you go before we could question you as to his possible whereabouts. Thing is, Bin Laden’s whereabouts are still unknown….I wonder why?

It would have been better to detain the family. Let his family go, but let more than 3,000 American soldiers die? Doesn’t seem right to me.

“McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.’
What a howler! If there was one major defect in the Bush approach to the renewal of hostilities in an ongoing war it was the failure to vigorously defend his positions. Propaganda can be lies, but it can also be the vigorous defense of an action.

It seems very obvious that McClellen is trying to save himself from a future war crimes indictment. He knows damn well that after the new president is inaugurated next January, Bush, Dick, Rumsfeld, Rice and some of their enablers will be indicted for war crimes. What he describes, and far worse, has been known to most people for a very long time now, despite the corporate media’s meekness and capitulation to this fascist regime. Right now this long time Bush family friend is trying to avoid being sent to the Hague.

It’s infuriating to note that these excerpts don’t contain any apology, or contrition by McClellan for the death and injury of our armed services women and men in Iraq, and to their families, or to the over million Iraqi civilians killed or injured in this immoral and illegal war. He is still a despicable person unwilling to admit his culpability in the death and destruction of the war. He’s no different than any of the vile warmongers of the Administration, war profiteers, and duplicitous corporate media. Utter contempt on them all. Where is his public penitence?

Just goes to show that Repugnants only tell the “truth” when it’s too late and they can make a fast buck off of it. I wonder what the excuse will be for not hoisting the Bush junta up on impeachment charges now. “Too many crimes to prosecute; where would we start, so let’s just give up and continue to appease this criminal so he doesn’t cancel the elections” is my bet.

I would welcome a war crimes trial in faint hope that most of the accusations would collapse of their own insubstantial icompetence and ignorance. It could be a full time job to Fisk all the incompetent ignorances above, but as always the haters are impervious to reality.

to person who claims we are the most “militaristic” because we spend so much more than other countries on our military.

Try thinking for just a moment..we also spend so much more than other countries on the UN and on foreign aid.

On a personal choice basis, we give more from our pocketbooks per capita than any other country’s citizens when a disaster happens…(I noted how much money came pouring in from foreign citizens for relief after Katrina)..and without doing any research at all, I can guarantee our poorest 20% of our citizens spend more on leisure activities like eating in restaurants and going to movies, and on luxury items like $200 tennis shoes and name brand clothes.

Ok, now think a little bit.

If, based on comparative spending, we are the most “militaristic” ( do you know what that word MEANS??) country then this would also mean that we are the most generous country in the world and have the richest poor in the world, which would mean we are the best place to be poor in the world.

I will accept your new definition of militaristic, if you will accept that we are the most generous and the best place to be “poor”.

To COulter–you and Gary have found a new item to bash Obama with and you are running with it–clearly there is nothing else of merit for the republicans to stand and/or run on, so you nitpick comments and try to paint Obama as the next Neville C.
Nice try,, but will not work, neither will your bogus analogies like the one above
I guess in your fantasy world, we would be invading Syria, Iran and North Korea now also–of course your kids and bUsh’s kids would not be fighting on the front lines.

By the way have you noticed that since Bush’s speech to the Knesset about appeasement etc, it has come out the Israel is meeting and talking with Syria–one of Bush’s axis of evil countries.

“There is a difference between diplomacy and appeasement–talking to other countries/leaders does not mean they are being appeased”

Coulter,

You are correct, there is a difference. However, talking to al qaeda only enhances al qaeda…it does not defeat them. GWB is currently defeating them. My question is what would Obama do to DEFEAT al qaeda? Do you have a rational answer?

With respect to foreign policiy, this is likely to be the central question of the presidential campaign. I would think that your side would have a rational answer.

Big Mama,

I respect Walter, even if I don’t always agree with him, for example on the draft issue. You should show some respect for your elders…it sounds like they could teach you something.

They lied. From soup to nuts. Many of us knew this about six years ago.
We knew the MSM was enabling the bloody bogus mess because war is good for ratings; CNN’s viewership went up 500% after September 11, and if you think the fatcats in the advertising didn’t connect the dots and forecast the ducats, I have a bridge in New York to sell you. Those greedy bastards are at least as responsible for the current calamity as the wretched serial criminals in the White House, OEOB and Capitol Building.

They were the PR section, the means by which those Bush-borne monsters were able to terrorize an entire population into agreeing with a plan to commit mass murder in the first degree and grand theft writ large. Maybe they were just credulous dolts and didn’t really know the score, and you know what? That’s worse. At least the Bush guys had an ideology. These MSM whores were just along for the ride, hoping to capture their own personal White Bronco Moment on film and advance their God damned vapid empty worthless careers enough to get limo service and an anchor seat and fame and fortune and stock options. The Bush people were evil with intent. The media people were evil in their utter diffidence. Bastards with perfect hair and makeup. Butchers who neither knew nor cared about what was what.

McClellan spilled their beans…stone the creepy crows, right? Frankly, I’m shocked he had the stones to open his mouth. I barely remember his time at the podium because I make a point of never listening to deliberate liars who get paid to stare into cameras and flipp his country off behind his back day day after day; maybe I’m a slacker for it, but the hell with this. I’d rather take a ball-peen hammer to my forehead than sit down and watch someone verbally undo constitutional law, governmental integrity and public trust. McClellan talked a lot of people into savage and violent death, into having their arms and legs and faces blasted away, into having their minds get turned to insensate slop by explosive concussion, into having their lives shattered by PTSD nightmares they will never fully escape.
Scott McClellan, may he rot in hell. He might as well have told us the sun rises in the east. Down with the MSM. Nothing they say has been of any interest to me for a long, long time. I am many moons past needing to hear any of those ghouls acknowledge or confirm that which I have known to be brass-bottomed fact for years. If they said they lied, I’d think they were lying. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

“Make America more respected in the world. He would engage the world.”

And how would that defeat al qaeda? Bill Clinton was well liked, yet Osama just laughed at him. While Bill was getting a Lewinsky, Osama was getting prepared. OBL is now hiding in a cave somewhere in NW Pakistan, and his plans have been highly disrupted by GWB.

If this is the best you guys can do, you are in trouble in November.

Gary–again bringing up Bill Clinton–nothing to say so let’s bring up Clinton. The 9/11 attack came during Bush’s watch. bush promised to hunt down Bin Laden and has failed so far–in fact his ignoring of Afghanistan has let Al Qeida re-establish there, while Bush plays his little war game in Iraq.
Bush defeating Al Qeada?? Maybe in your fantasy world. Bush has also allowed Al Qaedea to establish a presence in Iraq–not a very good scorecard for Bush with regard to Bin Laden and his gang.

“Bill Clinton was well liked, yet Osama just laughed at him”

Osama attacked during the Bush administration’s tenure, not Clinton’s. Pure laziness, Gary, pure laziness. Trying to outsource all your party’s responsibility to someone else?

It has become obvious in a very short period of time that Senator Obama attended some very fine schools and learned almost nothing of American history.
He has, however, hung out with radicals for the past few decades, and their view of America and its history has sunk in, leaving Obama not only gaffe-prone, but wholly unprepared to be the Commander-in-Chief. He’s a product of his years and years in the Chicago machine with its nonsensical view of why things are the way they are and how the county and the economy works.
This takes us back to the Rev. Wright and Obama’s two decades of listening to and reading the pastor’s worldview, and before that to his college years in California and New York, and working as a “community organizer” in Chicago.
Senator Obama has lived his entire life in places where the distorted history of left-wing radicalism prevailed, and the consequences of this long immersion in pseudo-history and pseudo-economics are easy to see and will be disqualifying for most voters.

“The New York Times acknowledged that not just Judy Miller, but the paper as a whole, re-printed pro-war government claims that were “allowed to stand unchallenged.” The Washington Post’s own media critic, Howard Kurtz, documented that anti-war views were systematically buried at that paper. The NYT recently exposed that network and cable news shows for years continuously allowed Pentagon-controlled operatives to masquerade as “independent analysts” spouting the pro-government line with virtually no challenge. And the media’s pathological fixation on the Clinton sex scandals – which led to his impeachment – stood in stark contrast to the widespread indifference among the citizenry.”

Well said.

In a lot of ways we Americans brought our current state of affairs upon ourselves. Americans have become way too complacent. It’s time now to change.

I don’t blame others for the problems I got, instead I take care of them. If you want it done right, you’ve got to do it yourself.

Bush is both incompetent and wasteful – both in his use of lives and money. Ms. Rice is the same.

In What Happened, Scott McClellan offers withering portraits of George Bush, Karl Rove, Condi Rice, and Scooter Libby, confirms that we went to war in Iraq under false pretenses, and that we were serially lied to about the outing of Valerie Plame.

Interesting stuff, Scott. But about five years too late.

It’s George Tenet déjà vu all over again. How many times are we going to have a key Bush administration official try to wash the blood off his hands – and add a chunk of change to his bank account – by writing a come-clean book years after the fact, pointing the finger at everyone else while painting himself as an innocent bystander to history who saw all the horrible things that were happening but, somehow, had no choice but to go along?

McClellan told the Washington Post that he wrote the book to “provide an open and honest look at how things went off course and what can be learned from it.” And he told Cox News Service, “My job was to advocate and defend [Bush’s] policies and speak on his behalf. This is an opportunity for me now to share my own views and perspective on things.”

Great. We need all the openness and honesty we can get. But it would have been a lot more helpful if he had taken the “opportunity” when it really mattered – say before the 2004 election, when it could have potentially saved thousands of lives.

What Happened is page-turning reading. What Didn’t Happen – namely McClellan telling the truth in service to his country rather than in service to his book sales –is a stomach-turning disappointment.

Axiom: Yup, proving how intelligent the left is yet again.

This is why I own a gun..and know how to use it. This kind of fanatical hatred will one day overflow and I will be able to defend myself.

The most depressing aspect of this is that the majority of the public and the entire US Congress knew all along that Bush/Cheney were a hybrid of a murderous crime family&fascist junta, yet were still willing to behave like an ostrich and tolerate its horrors. McClellan doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. This isn’t an indictment of Bush/Cheeny and their henchmen, they were indicted a long time ago. We knew they were our version of the Nazis. This is an indictment of the American public, its conformism and lethargy.

Scott McClellan said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, when she was White House national security adviser, gave in too often to Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

“I felt that too often she was too accommodating … of the other strong personalities on the foreign policy team … and too deferential to those individuals,” he said.

But of course we have known all that for almost 8 years now. Condi has always been a lightweight, an intellectual midget and a brown-noser with no principles except the perpetual desire to please her masters.

Hey, “Big” Al, everyone capable of learning knows that McCarthy was a piker. And, Sarlat, the comment “Scott McClellan said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, when she was White House national security adviser, gave in too often to Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.” indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of governance by the commenter. Concurence and agreement are not surrender.

if you think you know what your talking about
your most likey full of s___!

G- u are the only one spewing hatred and vitriol while
you pretend to have a grasp on reality-

I suppose you must fit the bill described above-
is that what troubles you? the truth?

Once again a serious question dodged by Gary’s sleight-of-hand. The question is whether the President of the United States is above the law. The question is not whether any or all presidents have broken any laws in the past. The question is: is the President, by virtue of the office of president, above the law?

In addition, it appears that a refresher course is in order: United States law prohibits murder and assassination.

Gary has become a troll, just arguing so that he can be the center of attention.
Time to Stop Feeding the Troll.

Gery, you’ve always been a troll.

G Dog-
wake up!
I felt like doing a little trolling this morning-
chime in after your fruit loops are gone-
I need some vitriol to get the vital flowing!
Nobody spews it out like you old sport!

No, Gary, just a typo; I don’t drink.

Gary, it’s habeas corpus, not “habeus corpus.” A little too much afternoon martini?