Why would they want to go to war, asks Carlson.
Tucker Carlson is a Libertarian.
The question arose after Mike Barnacle, co-host with Mika B., noted Scott McClellan's charge in his just-released book about his stint in George W. Bush's Administration, as Press Secretary, that the Administration "relied on 'propaganda' to sell the war on Iraq."
Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House
By MIKE ALLEN | 5/27/08
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
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html
Scott McClellan, in a clip shown on Morning Joe from the Today show, is shown saying he gave Bush the 'benefit of the doubt."
The former Press Secretary to the "Decider" George W. Bush will appear on a few more network programs today to discuss the material he's provided in his book entitled:
WHAT HAPPENED
We wondered when we heard the title why it wasn't called WHAT REALLY REALLY HAPPENED, so as not to interfere with a website (near conspiratorial) called What Really Happened.
After hearing and reading some of what all is included in the book, we wondered why McClellan didn't simply entitle the book: The Truth About George W. Bush, Carl Rove, etc. or Leave Me Out, or LET ME OUTTA HERE, or LET ME OUTTA HERE, YOU'RE BAD PEOPLE.
Seriously, you're an employee of well anybody in a postition of holding what's called "the public trust," you observe and watch all sorts of near unethical things going on, or absolutely unethical things going on, and you choose to what, stay?
Stay for longer than a few months, or stay for over a year, or two, or four?
Nope. You choose somehow, someway, to get the hell out of there as soon as you possibly can.
You can either keep quiet about all the unethical things you've observed by your elected public officials who hold the public trust, or you speak up.
If you choose to remain silent, you have to live with the guilt if you believe the ethically challenged just keep on keeping on, and in the process hurt the public, or you have to live without guilt and with the hope that sometimes, yes sometimes, people do change, recognize their own unprincipled actions, or you live without guilt knowing that sooner or later the public thankfully elects replacements who aren't as ethically challenged, at least not when they're first elected to office.
But if you observe near unethical or unethical activity going on in the public arena, where persons do take an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the state and the U.S. Constitution, and you darned well choose to speak up, if that's what you choose to do, you better not leave any darned dangling participants.
Like if you worked for the President of the United States, or technically in the President's Administration, and you've observed and are aware of unethical activity, you know for instance, the process used to convince the public and the Congress to support your idea to go to war was not only "propaganda" but is without the justification provided, that is, no weapons of mass destruction, no mushroom clouds threat in reality, you darn well better be clear a 'saran wrap' exposing the lies.
McClellan appears to have told only part of the story.
Tucker Carlson rightly and uniquely points this out.
McClellan should be asked point-blank: did George W. Bush seek to initiate a war against Iraq to leave behind a historical Presidential legacy?
we'll track if McClellan comes face to face with Tucker Carlson, or someone else who asks and demands an answer to that question.
The answers to other questions matter, but the answer to this question matters more.
Now that McClellan has spoken about unethical practices in the Bush Administration, McClellan must be absolutely clear about the Iraq War and precisely what led to its initiation since he appears to know the answer. He must tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment