Last Night's Colbert Report with Nas

[John Adams]

Tick tock tick tock.

[OCinBuffalo]

Do you even know who Richard Clark and Paul O'Neill are, or what they had to say about GWB? Or are you just going to make more sh-- up like how McClellan was unable to find a job?

 

Ask your boyfriend Alaska Darin what happened when I checked up on his BS..............

Of course I know who they are. They just weren't that darn important. Richard Clark was the CIA desk guy assigned and when things didn't go his way, he knew that he would be gone permanently. So, he went out and wrote his book, made his money off of dopes like you and rode off into the sunset.

 

Just like Dick Morris is doing, still, when he was canned from the Clinton administration. The difference is: Morris really was on the inside. In fact you don't get more inside that him, which is why he gets to put out 3 books instead of one, and why he is still relevant, and still making money off what he knows.

 

When's the last time Richard Clark was consulted for anything? Why? Nothing new to say, and, it turns out, a lot of what he did say is questionable and/or nobody cared then and certainly not now.

 

Paul O'Neill is an interesting case, because he actually does know what he's talking about. The problem with him is: his entire opinion is based on the long term = if we don't raise taxes now AND massively cut spending, we WILL NOT be able to keep most government programs going. Some are going to die soon. He is right. But, between the "win right now" thinking in DC today, and the fact that Republicans don't really want those programs to survive anyway, he wasn't playing ball. He is another that was fired, by having his "resignation" accepted.

 

The funny part is that the smart Republicans are using the Paul O'Neill findings to do exactly what they want, kill off the entitlement programs that represent 75% of the entire Federal budget. And they are doing it all based on the assumption that Democrats will be dumb enough to take they bait, which so far, they have.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Of course I know who they are. They just weren't that darn important. Richard Clark was the CIA desk guy assigned and when things didn't go his way, he knew that he would be gone permanently. So, he went out and wrote his book, made his money off of dopes like you and rode off into the sunset.

 

 

Wrong again, he was not a "CIA desk guy" he was one of the President's National Security advisors!!!!

 

And didn't Paul O'Neill's book say something similiar about Iraq as McClellan and Clarke's books?

[OCinBuffalo]

Your spinning is making me dizzy........just keep making sh-- up...........

 

McClellan also worked here.

 

So now you can join your boyfriend Alaska Darin as another blowhard whose rants can't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny!

I'm not spinning....You still haven't answered my question. Lot's of political operatives go on to work for the next guy. I know because in between campaigns they are usually at the bar in Center City Philly. Who is McClellan working for? Which campaign? It's election season if you haven't noticed.

 

All you have is corporate websites, which means he is out. What other conclusion can one draw? He is either good as a press secretary or he isn't. If he can't get a job, he is done, and now he has to seek 9 to 5 life elsewhere. He did a money grab before that = his book, and that's the end of the story. As so many "insiders" have done before him.

 

Again, this has been going on in every administration since LBJ's. There is nothing new, significant, or important about it, unless you don't know that, and are dopey enough to hand over your money. There's no spin here. This is the reason so many people want to be part of the big time. There's always writing the book and cashing in your integrity for $75,000(his signing fee) and whatever % he gets of books sold in McClellan's case. That's pretty cheap, you would think his integrity would be worth more than that, but, you gotta take what you can get. Doesn't the fact that he only got $75,000 when the usual fee is $3-4 million tell you anything?

[elegantelliotoffen]

I'm not spinning....You still haven't answered my question. Lot's of political operatives go on to work for the next guy. I know because in between campaigns they are usually at the bar in Center City Philly. Who is McClellan working for? Which campaign? It's election season if you haven't noticed.

 

All you have is corporate websites, which means he is out. What other conclusion can one draw? He is either good as a press secretary or he isn't. If he can't get a job, he is done, and now he has to seek 9 to 5 life elsewhere. He did a money grab before that = his book, and that's the end of the story. As so many "insiders" have done before him.

 

Again, this has been going on in every administration since LBJ's. There is nothing new, significant, or important about it, unless you don't know that, and are dopey enough to hand over your money. There's no spin here. This is the reason so many people want to be part of the big time. There's always writing the book and cashing in your integrity for $75,000(his signing fee) and whatever % he gets of books sold in McClellan's case. That's pretty cheap, you would think his integrity would be worth more than that, but, you gotta take what you can get. Doesn't the fact that he only got $75,000 when the usual fee is $3-4 million tell you anything?

 

How did you go from being a big shot lobbyist to being a bartender?

 

OK, let's forget about the character attacks, can you refute the substance of McClellan's book? Have you even read his book? Or are you like DC Tom and have an opinion of a book that you've never even cracked open. And since when is Philly the center of American politics? Isn't K Street quite a ways away? And since when is Press Secretary such an amazing job in Washington. It's a stepping stone to the private sector. I'm sure he was making at least 5 times as much at HHB Inc.

[OCinBuffalo]

Wrong again, he was not a "CIA desk guy" he was one of the President's National Security advisors!!!!

Let's add National Security Council, State Department and CIA to the list of things you don't know about/have no idea how they work. The NSC is a group of people, not a few, and they advise the Executive branch.

 

First quesiton: WHICH PRESIDENT? The answer is: CLINTON

 

"One of"? Yeah, that means he gets assigned the desk for Iraq or something else. He might have come from State. Clinton comes in and promotes him from there to be an Advisor on the NSC. He gets demoted by Bush 2 in terms of his status, and because of 9/11, but stays on at the NSC. He gets pissed first because of the demotion, and the fact is that 9/11 happened on his watch, and the fact that he was giving bad advice. He was part of the Clinton, "terrorism is a law enforcement issue" thinking and needed to be cut from the program, precisely because TERRORISM IS NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE when nation-states sponsor it or when it involves WMD.

 

Second because the rest of the NSC doesn't think we can take the risk on Iraq, and they were tired of his bitching, they asked him to leave. He then "quits", writes a book, and again, now has his retirement taken care of. Nothing new.

 

Perhaps you don't know, but this kind of staff shakeup happens all the time in companies/major corporations. There are always holdovers that the new crew let's hang on to see if they can mesh with the new folks. The difference is: nobody cares if they can't. They get fired, and nobody is going to buy a book about it.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Let's add National Security Council, State Department and CIA to the list of things you don't know about/have no idea how they work. The NSC is a group of people, not a few, and they advise the Executive branch.

 

First quesiton: WHICH PRESIDENT? The answer is: CLINTON

 

"One of"? Yeah, that means he gets assigned the desk for Iraq or something else. He might have come from State. Clinton comes in and promotes him from there to be an Advisor on the NSC. He gets demoted by Bush 2 in terms of his status, and because of 9/11, but stays on at the NSC. He gets pissed first because of the demotion, and the fact is that 9/11 happened on his watch, and the fact that he was giving bad advice. He was part of the Clinton, "terrorism is a law enforcement issue" thinking and needed to be cut from the program, precisely because TERRORISM IS NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE when nation-states sponsor it or when it involves WMD.

 

Second because the rest of the NSC doesn't think we can take the risk on Iraq, and they were tired of his bitching, they asked him to leave. He then "quits", writes a book, and again, now has his retirement taken care of. Nothing new.

 

Perhaps you don't know, but this kind of staff shakeup happens all the time in companies/major corporations. There are always holdovers that the new crew let's hang on to see if they can mesh with the new folks. The difference is: nobody cares if they can't. They get fired, and nobody is going to buy a book about it.

 

Thank god Bush demoted the only guy who was trying to warn him about Al Qaeda!!!! You should be so proud of GWB!

 

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

 

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

 

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

 

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

 

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

 

By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

 

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

 

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

 

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

 

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

 

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

 

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

[KD in CA]

Thank god Bush demoted the only guy who was trying to warn him about Al Qaeda!!!! You should be so proud of GWB!

 

Classic molton here. OC gives him a six paragraph explaination for why he's dead wrong about yet another topic. And the retard response?

 

BUSH BAD!

 

 

[OCinBuffalo]

How did you go from being a big shot lobbyist to being a bartender?

 

OK, let's forget about the character attacks, can you refute the substance of McClellan's book? Have you even read his book? Or are you like DC Tom and have an opinion of a book that you've never even cracked open. And since when is Philly the center of American politics? Isn't K Street quite a ways away? And since when is Press Secretary such an amazing job in Washington. It's a stepping stone to the private sector. I'm sure he was making at least 5 times as much at HHB Inc.

Try Chairman and CEO of my company. I used to be a bartender in college. I wouldn't call that proper bar tending though, I think I actually mixed a real drink twice(jack and coke doesn't count). I refer possessively to "my bars" in all the cities I go to because I am treated very well by them. I try to be interesting and cool and I think they respond to that, but it's probably because I tip well and they humor me. I have a "regular" standing at multiple airport bars as well, which is, I think, a cool thing.

 

But yeah, I'm a bartender.

 

I don't think it's possible for a character attack from you to even come close to being valid, so I won't worry myself about it Ok?

I have seen the interviews he did on multiple shows, read the excerpts online and decided that Scott doesn't get my money. Have you read it? Or, are you in the habit of paying for BS "just because"? Nobody bought the thing in comparison to similar books, so it looks like I am in the majority on this one. Were you dumb enough to buy it?

Have you been to Center City ever? Clearly you haven't. There are so many out-of-work, waiting for the next gig operatives, and they all hang out at the bars, with the lobbyists and everybody else. I don't know why, Philly seems to attract them. It also might have something to do with how many of the countries(and yeah as in many countries all over the world) best and largest law firms being HQed in Philly.

I don't think any of it is "Amazing". However, if you are in PR, there isn't a higher posting than PR guy for the President of the United States of America. I guess we can add PR to the list of things you don't know about.

No, the private sector is where they go(normally) to get the best and the brightest to work on campaigns. Or, campaign people work in the private sector waiting for the next shot at the big time.

Any corporate job pays better than the government. The fact is that it is a revolving door in most cases. Or, you put your time in at the government and then go make the big money in a corporation. Again, they fact is that this guy is done politically, and once his phone book is useless, so will he be.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Classic molton here. OC gives him a six paragraph explaination for why he's dead wrong about yet another topic. And the retard response?

 

BUSH BAD!

 

 

 

Typical rightwing response, attack the messenger and not the message!

[elegantelliotoffen]

Any corporate job pays better than the government. The fact is that it is a revolving door in most cases. Or, you put your time in at the government and then go make the big money in a corporation. Again, they fact is that this guy is done politically, and once his phone book is useless, so will he be.

 

That's exactly my point, he resigned and cashed out at a corporate gig. His Republican contacts may be shot now but they weren't before he wrote the book. I think writing this book may have actually cost him money in the long run.

[KD in CA]

Typical rightwing response, attack the messenger and not the message!

 

But your message is always that you are intensely stupid, so it really doesn't make any difference.

[OCinBuffalo]

Classic molton here. OC gives him a six paragraph explaination for why he's dead wrong about yet another topic. And the retard response?

 

BUSH BAD!

 

 

Good thing the call was extra boring today. Health care "technology consortium" my left toe. I love it when people first discover an inkling of data warehousing, or any technology, and suddenly think it cures all the world's ills. Maybe next week I'll take it off of mute and get them a clue. It's like the equivalent of Chris Rock's Robitussen bit.

 

Anyway, yeah, I am bored so I decided to play with toolbox here. If nothing else, I get to teach something, so at least my afternoon isn't completely wasted.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Good thing the call was extra boring today. Health care "technology consortium" my left toe. I love it when people first discover an inkling of data warehousing, or any technology, and suddenly think it cures all the world's ills. Maybe next week. It's like the equivalent of Chris Rock's Robitussen bit.

 

Anyway, yeah, I am bored so I decided to play with toolbox here. If nothing else, I get to teach something, so at least my afternoon isn't completely wasted.

 

I appreciate the crash course in "making sh1t up as you go along"!

[OCinBuffalo]

That's exactly my point, he resigned and cashed out at a corporate gig. His Republican contacts may be shot now but they weren't before he wrote the book. I think writing this book may have actually cost him money in the long run.

No. His contacts were shot when he got on TV and f'ed up. Hell, my sister and I were waiting for my dad to go out to the bars with us one time and I was flipping through channels. I landed on him and she suddenly started talking about how bad he was at his job. She's apolitical and she works in PR. What's it gonna take for you to understand that sometimes people aren't up to the task and you have to let them go? I don't like it, but I have done it all the same. It is what it is.

 

Only, in this case, they guy has a high profile job, that some people care about, and some people can use as political ammo, so he gets paid the big bucks for telling his "story". Doesn't change the fact that he sucked at his job, was fired because of it, and nobody will touch him in politics ever again. Hell, even without the book he was probably done, because he sucks at his job!

[Wacka]

I appreciate the crash course in "making sh1t up as you go along"!

 

You, in all your various personae, seem to be an expert at that!

[OCinBuffalo]

I appreciate the crash course in "making sh1t up as you go along"!

Right, as opposed the minor degree's worth of classes from you on the "sh-- you don't know about". Do yourself a favor, re-read this thread..........

 

 

 

 

Find anywhere where I say: Scott McClellan is a liar? How about Scott McCellan is wrong? Or even George Bush did a great job and Scott McClellan is trying to sabotage it?

 

Notice you don't see that anywhere, now do you. You don't because:

1. I, unlike you, am a reasonable person. I do not let BS ideology anywhere near me in any form, from one side or the other. I merely deal in terms of truth first, compassion second.

2. How would I know if McClellan is telling the truth? How would you? The fact is neither of us do, and there's a heap of evidence that says: "use your f'ing head Elegant Elliot, it's probably wise to take this with a dumptruck full of salt considering the circumstances". The evidence is calling Elloit. You gonna listen?

3. We all know Bush has screwed up here, we just don't know if it was strategically, or merely tactically or a little of both. We also don't know to what degree. And, most importantly IF things ultimately go his way, there will be hell to pay politically. This is why you have Obama with 3 different positions on the surge, changing daily. He simply cannot afford to look like the "boy who cried wolf" or worse, the boy cried in general when things got tough.

 

You don't like Bush, that much is clear. But what is also clear is that Scott McClellan is an ax-grinding incompetent, and using him to make any point is lame.

[Wacka]

Lets have a contest after elegant, er, Molson, er whatever is banned again on who can spot his next persona the fastest.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Right, as opposed the minor degree's worth of classes from you on the "sh-- you don't know about". Do yourself a favor, re-read this thread..........

 

 

 

 

Find anywhere where I say: Scott McClellan is a liar? How about Scott McCellan is wrong? Or even George Bush did a great job and Scott McClellan is trying to sabotage it?

 

Notice you don't see that anywhere, now do you. You don't because:

1. I, unlike you, am a reasonable person. I do not let BS ideology anywhere near me in any form, from one side or the other. I merely deal in terms of truth first, compassion second.

2. How would I know if McClellan is telling the truth? How would you? The fact is neither of us do, and there's a heap of evidence that says: "use your f'ing head Elegant Elliot, it's probably wise to take this with a dumptruck full of salt considering the circumstances". The evidence is calling Elloit. You gonna listen?

3. We all know Bush has screwed up here, we just don't know if it was strategically, or merely tactically or a little of both. We also don't know to what degree. And, most importantly IF things ultimately go his way, there will be hell to pay politically. This is why you have Obama with 3 different positions on the surge, changing daily. He simply cannot afford to look like the "boy who cried wolf" or worse, the boy cried in general when things got tough.

 

You don't like Bush, that much is clear. But what is also clear is that Scott McClellan is an ax-grinding incompetent, and using him to make any point is lame.

 

I'm getting mixed messages here. On one hand he's an ax-grinding imcompetent but you're not saying that he's either wrong or lying? How is that possible?

 

Lets have a contest after elegant, er, Molson, er whatever is banned again on who can spot his next persona the fastest.

 

I'll be gone by the start of preaseason, then I'll at least have some football to talk about.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm getting mixed messages here. On one hand he's an ax-grinding imcompetent but you're not saying that he's either wrong or lying? How is that possible?

Very easy. What if he, because he's incompetent, doesn't know that he's wrong? Or, he's not "lying" but exaggerating his role in policy decisions in order to make himself appear more relevant = higher profile = more $$$$?

 

What I am saying is that in the press conferences I saw, he looked awful, and that's with an untrained eye. I think of Ari Fleischer in general, or the public beating the new girl gave that left-biased old bag front row white house reporter, and I think "good". I think of McClellan and I think "bad". And that was all before the book came out.

 

I think those things not because of politics, I simply think of who's doing a good job and who's doing a bad one. The simple fact is that the only reason McClellan stayed as long as he did is: Bush's confounding loyalty to his people even when they need to fired immediately. Think Rumsfeld, and then think McClellan.

 

Edit: oh, and of course my message seems "mixed" to you, it's because it's based on reason, not ideology. Fascist liberals aren't used to/don't have any critical thinking skills, so I'm sure this is difficult for you.