May 28, 2008 7:25 AM
Bush's ex-spokesman throws colleagues under the bus - then backs over them
As President Bush's press secretary, Scott McClellan pushed the administration's policy on Iraq and other national issues. In his new memoir, well, not so much.
The Bush White House made "a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed" - a time when the nation was on the brink of war, McClellan writes in the book entitled "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."The way Bush managed the Iraq issue "almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option," the book contends, according to accounts Wednesday in The New York Times and Washington Post.
"In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage," McClellan writes.
In a surprisingly harsh assessment from the man who was at that time the loyal public voice of the White House, McClellan called the Iraq war a "serious strategic blunder."
"The Iraq war was not necessary," he concludes.
McClellan admits that some of his own words from the podium in the White House briefing room turned out to be "badly misguided." But he says he was sincere at the time.
"I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be," McClellan writes. He also blames the media whose questions he fielded, calling them "complicit enablers" in the White House campaign to manipulate public opinion toward the need for war.
McClellan says he still has admiration and affection for Bush but that the President was undermined by his advisors.
He writes, for example, that after Hurricane Katrina, the White House "spent most of the first week in a state of denial," and he blames Karl Rove for suggesting the photo of the president comfortably observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover. McClellan says he and counselor to the president Dan Bartlett had opposed the idea and thought it had been scrapped.But he writes that he later was told that "Karl was convinced we needed to do it -- and the president agreed."
"One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush's second term," he writes. "And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath."
McClellan, who turned 40 in February, was press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. An Austin native from a political family, he began working as a gubernatorial spokesman for then-Gov. Bush in early 1999, was traveling press secretary for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and was chief deputy to Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at the beginning of Bush's first term.
"I still like and admire President Bush," McClellan writes. "But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. ... In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security."
The blowback defense is already shaping up: Rove told Fox News that McClellan "sounds like a liberal blogger." Expect to hear that McClellan was out of the loop, never involved in high level discussions, etc.
The White House sloughed off the book this morning as the work of a disgruntled former staffer.
"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," White House press secretary Dana Perino said in a statement for reporters traveling with Bush in Colorado today. "For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad -- this is not the Scott we knew."She added: "The book, as reported by the press, has been described to the president. I do not expect a comment from him on it -- he has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers."
Who do you believe?
May 28, 2008
8:35 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
I am shocked, shocked to discover that the Bush administration lied to us.
The real shock is that more rats are not jumping off the sinking ship.
May 28, 2008
8:51 AM
Tree writes:
Shit, I've known that for 10 years- Bob Seger
Surprise me, tell me something I already don't know- Gordon Gekko
May 28, 2008
8:56 AM
JW writes:
"sounds like a liberal blogger"
What?!!!! Rove is admitting that the liberal bloggers have been right all this time?!!!
May 28, 2008
8:57 AM
Shaggy writes:
Looks like some disgruntled man is out to make a profit by bashing Bush.
The loons will be flocking to the bookstores to eat this up hook line and sinker.
Anyhoo, much ado bout notta.
May 28, 2008
9:11 AM
Tree writes:
8dude-
I'm still waiting for that book from one of his daughters.
"My sister calls him Daddy, I call him Sugar Daddy"
Shagbastard- (yes, from the movie)
Would you buy the book if it had pictures?
May 28, 2008
9:11 AM
Anonymous writes:
Months ago this guy was a stooge to the loony left, now he will be there Hero for whispering the things the femdems want to hear.
May 28, 2008
9:12 AM
SlouchingtowardBoulder writes:
Compare the incredible media coverage for this book versus another Bush administration "insider" book that came out last month - Douglas Feith's War and Decision - Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn on the War on Terrorism. See http://www.dougfeith.com/
Why the non-existent coverage of Douglas Feith's book who was in these meetings that McCllelan can only refer to? Because Feith's book doesn't ape the mindless postings from a DailyKOS website as does McCllelan's book.
May 28, 2008
9:14 AM
JW writes:
"Anyhoo, much ado bout notta."
Yea, lying about sex between consenting adults is a huge deal, provided its a democrat.
Lying about selling arms to Iran or exposing covert CIA agents or the reasons for starting a war? Much ado bout notta.
Damnit Shaggy. Everytime I think there may be hope for you yet...you go and post this kind of partisan based bullshit. Its depressing to see the depths to which your double standard makes you sink.
May 28, 2008
9:21 AM
JMH writes:
Shaggy, The only loons are the blind sheep like yourself who don't want to face the reality of this administration's lies and deception. "Much ado about nothing"... are you for real? The fact that we are bankrupting our country to rape another based on lies is "nothing"? If anything, you sure are a loyal little NeoCon...
As far as this whole thing goes, nothing really new here. Anyone that was willing to pay attention and not swallow the propaganda knows all this already. This administration will go down in history and the most corrupt, dishonest and incompitent presidency in American history. A complete failure from beginning to end. Unfortanatly the major players in this administration will never get what they have coming to them - PRISION!
May 28, 2008
9:43 AM
Shaggy writes:
Oh Please guys, You don't think the only reason this guy is writing this book bashing Bush is for a profit.
Actually this guy is a genius...He knows the left Bush whackers will have this thing flying off the shelves and the left Bush whacking media will be giving him and his Bush whacking book all the exposure he can handle.
Brilliant I say...simply brilliant.
Also perfect timing for this to hit the book stores....
May 28, 2008
9:55 AM
JMH writes:
Why shaggy? To tell us what we all already know? This same book has been written 100 times already by all kinds of people... we all know the truth now! Have for years.
But obviously, it can never be the truth with you, it is always some conspiracty to GET the right-wing huh? Easy "escape reality" mechanisim that you NeoCons got there huh? Chalk everything negative up as "liberal bias". You may want to hide from the truth, but it looks like 71% of America isn't gonna....
May 28, 2008
10:14 AM
Shaggy writes:
Now Bam Bam, you should know better than to post strawman fallacies.
This guy is a self serving idiot out to cash in on an opportunity.
May 28, 2008
10:52 AM
JW writes:
"This guy is a self serving idiot out to cash in on an opportunity."
Can't fault him for that.
That said, hes offering nothing new. The only difference is that he was a Bush admin insider. All this stuff has been out for a very long time, and its only the wingnuts who refused to believe it.
May 28, 2008
11:04 AM
R writes:
It's so sad to watch the righties continue to spin this. Just sad.
May 28, 2008
11:26 AM
KW writes:
NEWS FLASH: This man is selling a book. He's selling it to make a profit. He IS NOT coming forth with secret information because he feels the need to be honest for a change.
Sheeze. What's most funny here is how the far left will scramble to obtain this book and trust it's words as true gospel, without ever using one ounce of objectivity in evaluating it's source.
Come to think it, this isn't funny at all, merely par for the Bushhaters course.
May 28, 2008
11:29 AM
Kevin J Jones writes:
"Yea, lying about sex between consenting adults is a huge deal, provided its a democrat."
Repeat after me: The lying was done under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit. If you want your sister or daughter to be able to fight off her pervy boss, you shouldn't be so excusing.
Bush only got elected because people were so repulsed by Clinton. I suspect the next Dem president will get in for much the same reasons, and he or she could be quite bad too. We should just pick the president by lottery.
May 28, 2008
11:30 AM
Tree writes:
What really pisses me off is how public officials get to play above the law and then get to personally profit and prosper from their crimes.
This Bush situation is not much different than a Fund manager seeking cash from investors for The Big Lebowski. If it turns out the investment is fraud, well the Fund manager goes to jail for a long long time and pays huge fines and penalties.
Cheney-Bush and gang use our resources, our tax money, our military on a fraudulent oil-power struggle and get rewarded with unlimited wealth and some. There's nothin' free about our society. Turn back father time, bring out the guillotine. Let the public watch and throw tomatoes before the beheadings.
May 28, 2008
11:59 AM
Holier Than Thou writes:
McClellan seems quite sympathetic towards Bush. He blames Bush's advisors. Naturally, the old Rove machine is going to react harshly to his truth.
Now the conservative cry is the ago old "if only we can get through those wicked advisors then we can save the king!" Trouble is that they are the advisors.
Conservatives wanted war from the very beginning. PNAC published this desire before September 11, 2001 stating quite clearly what was needed: a pretext in the form of an attack. So, while Clinton was distracted and had only one eye on the threat, the conservatives closed both eyes and prayed for it. Maybe they did more than just pray.
Now conservatives are betraying each other and calling each other (gasp!) liberals.
More like McClellan will be coming clean for the history books. They're seeing the results of the conservative dream, or rather nightmare, for America. A storm is brewing on the horizon. Cowards that they are, they don't want to be standing handcuffed in the dock when the payment comes due for their crimes. They're pleading out now. McClellan is just one of many more to come.
May 28, 2008
1:06 PM
JW writes:
"Repeat after me: The lying was done under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit. If you want your sister or daughter to be able to fight off her pervy boss, you shouldn't be so excusing."
Ok KJ, lets keep on topic, shall we? I said lying about sexual relations between consenting adults. That limits the issue to the Lewinsky thing, leaving out the arguable stuff you mention above.
Second, I wasnt excusing anything. Just pointing out the double standard. Clinton is a horrible bastard because he lied about a blowjob, while Reagan and Bush 2 are good ole boys despite the lies of their own.
May 28, 2008
1:19 PM
Shaggy writes:
JW,
Clinton lied to a GRAND JURY.
Why do you insist on protecting the Clintons?
Ohhh..never mind..they are Democrats.
Sheez man and you call me a partisan stooge.
Must be that broken mirror syndrome Liberals are noted for having.
May 28, 2008
1:26 PM
primafacie writes:
So, when Scott McClellan had a job, he was a liar.
Why should anyone believe him now?
May 28, 2008
1:28 PM
primafacie writes:
So, when Scott McClellan had a job, he was a liar. (Or so some would have you believe.)
Why should anyone believe him now?
May 28, 2008
1:36 PM
benn writes:
Actually Shaggy, JW never said that.
I gathered that he meant "Clinton lied, that was bad. So did Reagan, so did Bush... all bad"
His point is that you want to hang Clinton for lying, yet you idolize Bush and Reagan, even though they also lied. So, basically you're a hypocrite and an idiot, but we all knew that.
May 28, 2008
1:38 PM
JW writes:
"JW,
Clinton lied to a GRAND JURY.
Why do you insist on protecting the Clintons?
Ohhh..never mind..they are Democrats."
How am I defending him by calling him a liar Shaggy?
Again, the point here is that YOU consider Clinton a horrible person, while giving a pass to Reagan and Bush. The importance of the lies Clinton told vs the lies Bush and Reagan told makes it even worse.
Its like you hate one guy, who gave you a paper cut, but still dig the other guy, who beat the ever loving shit out of you. Ridiculous.
"So, when Scott McClellan had a job, he was a liar. (Or so some would have you believe.)
Why should anyone believe him now?"
Gee I dont know. Maybe because he when he was lying, he was saying the opposite of what hes saying now?
May 28, 2008
2:10 PM
Shaggy writes:
Show me a Politician and I will show you a liar.
The point is JW, you never come out and call the Clintons liars or Bill a male whore and a habitual liar, you just point out some Republicans that have lied to counter.
They are ALL liars.
Democrats just happen to lie more often:)
btw benn, I do not idolize Bush or Reagan but I happen to believe RR did more good for this Country than either of the Bush's or BC.
He brought people on both sides together.
Obama is not a uniter..he is a divider.
btw I am not a McCain idolizer either.
But he is the best of the three.
You see, I want a secured middle east and not have Iran come in and take over the second largest oil reserve in the world thus controlling Americas economy.
I don't see Obama doing anything to his Muslim brothers...no I did not say he was Muslim.
May 28, 2008
2:30 PM
JW writes:
"The point is JW, you never come out and call the Clintons liars or Bill a male whore and a habitual liar, you just point out some Republicans that have lied to counter.
They are ALL liars.
Democrats just happen to lie more often:)"
And there is the rub. I dont hate Bill Clinton for lying, but then, I dont hate Reagan or Bush for lying either. YOU. Well, thats a different story. You HATE HATE HATE Billy, but you have no such issues with Reagan or Bush. You SAY its because Billy was a liar, and a male whore, but thats not why you hate him. You hate him...because hes a dem. They lying is just the excuse you use to make yourself feel like you arent a partisan hack.
And here is the proof...
"btw benn, I do not idolize Bush or Reagan but I happen to believe RR did more good for this Country than either of the Bush's or BC.
He brought people on both sides together."
If lying was the criteria, as you say it is with Bill, you would hate Reagan too, because he lied as well.
But lying isnt the criteria. Being a democrat or a republican is. Partisan...hack.
May 28, 2008
3:11 PM
KW writes:
Am I missing something here? Why does JW keep excusing Clinton by claiming Bush and Reagan both lied as well
When did Bush or Reagan lie under oath before a grand jury?
Just to claim they probably lied to someone, somewhere in their term of office isn't exactly the same thing there JW.
May 28, 2008
3:28 PM
Holier Than Thou writes:
The board shows examples of the old gotcha gag.
Haul a man before grand jury for some frivolous purpose like getting him to admit a dishonorable but insignificant tryst with an intern. Get him to lie. Now it's a big deal.
Have an appointed president stand before Congress and lie straight-faced to the people's elected representatives and the entire nation. This, of course, is perjury before Congress. But it's excused because, as some now like to argue, politicians do it all the time.
The only problem with this disproportionate reasoning is that it ignores a body of evil doings where thousands of people are being needlessly slaughtered, the US Treasury is being robbed by war-profiteers, and the honor of our entire nation is destroyed.
But it's OK by some to let that pass because the crime was committed in the faces of our elected representatives instead of a randomly picked grand jury?
Aside from the basic insanity of such a proposition, to suggest that it's OK to lie to the people's representatives in making a case for war is a direct insult to the entire American public. The day may soon come when this insult is answered with a punishment befitting its magnitude.
May 28, 2008
3:29 PM
Sharon b writes:
Good for Scott. It was hard watching him at some of the press conferences when he wanted to be loyal to Bush, but was choking on what he had to say.
May 28, 2008
3:41 PM
Anonymous writes:
dhxjkdfgj
May 28, 2008
3:45 PM
Shaggy writes:
What the....happened in here?
I think I just went through a time zone on RTL.
Looks like everyone is going to have to log in..
I guess we no longer will see jay around.
May 28, 2008
5:20 PM
Charles_B writes:
I remember watching the guy's extreme discomfort at the podium wondering just what they had on him that would compel him to stand there and obfuscate for them day after day.
Although I'm glad we're not paying the guy $160,000 a year to lie to us anymore, it seems a bit ludicrous to shell out $27.95 today to read his guilty confessions. Body language was indicating his deceitfulness to anyone who cared to look back when he was still stuttering through his mind-numbing press briefings.
The reaction by modern conservatives to these revelations? They will, of course, attack the messenger, because acknowledging the truth would cause their whole manufactured reality to crumble.
As an anonymous Bush staffer once told Ron Suskind: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
Exactly the mindset Scottie McClellan describes Bush as having in his book.
May 28, 2008
5:22 PM
Charles_B writes:
I remember watching the guy's extreme discomfort at the podium wondering just what they had on him that would compel him to stand there and obfuscate for them day after day.
Although I'm glad we're not paying the guy $160,000 a year to lie to us anymore, it seems a bit ludicrous to shell out $27.95 today to read his guilty confessions. Body language was indicating his deceitfulness to anyone who cared to look back when he was still stuttering through his mind-numbing press briefings.
The reaction by modern conservatives to these revelations? They will, of course, attack the messenger, because acknowledging the truth would cause their whole manufactured reality to crumble.
As an anonymous Bush staffer once told Ron Suskind: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
Exactly the mindset Scottie McClellan describes Bush as having in his book.
May 28, 2008
7:11 PM
KW writes:
CB - It's nice that you can so quickly discern that McClellan was lying to us before and telling the truth now. Convenient too!
Or was he telling the truth before and lying now solely for money? A much more plausible motive than he ever had before most would agree.
Interesting that he had no problem attending these supposedly bad meetings and lying about them back when but today he's a born again truth teller without any question or scrutiny from the left.
Could it be perhaps you and the others here aren't hearing so much what you already knew, but rather embracing the words that you've so long to hear (BDS)?
That's what I thought.
Interesting too.
May 28, 2008
7:24 PM
jay writes:
bbbbut clinton.
May 28, 2008
7:41 PM
Mary writes:
I suggest all you chickenhawks who are still kissing the ground Bush slithers under check out what the US could be doing with the currently expended $562 BILLION the war in Iraq has cost already - and with "hidden costs" (for instance, paying for medical care for the returning wounded for say 50 years or so - or will you complain about that as ever so many GOP members do, referring to their hard-earned benefits as part of "entitlements") will probably run over $6 TRILLION at http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2008/05/alternative_boondoggles.html. The rest of us can only dream about what could be done in the US with those dollars (heck - we could even afford more tax cuts).
May 28, 2008
7:42 PM
Charles_B writes:
KW:
McClellan *did believe* what he was saying back then. Once he quit believing--he quit. Now? He's cashing in his truth chips and trying to relieve the pressure on his conscience.
The point many are missing in this story is that it speaks to the nature of the people Bush surrounds himself with--nodding, loyalist, sycophants.
Predictably, now that Scott has gone "off the reservation" remaining loyalists such as Rove, Perino, etc. have brought out the long knives and began skewering him as a disgruntled, deranged, mental-case without the courage of his convictions.
May 28, 2008
7:46 PM
Shaggy writes:
I would be willing to bet the Publisher guaranteed McClellan a certain amount of money if they could include some false left wing propaganda in his book.
Their the only ones who are going to buy it and run with it.
Anything "Bash Bush" is a top seller in Loonville.
May 28, 2008
7:54 PM
Charles_B writes:
Shaggy:
There's one of you born every minute.
May 28, 2008
8:09 PM
nappyheadedho writes:
I can't wait to read GWB's Rocky Mountain Tokyo Roses (Caplis, Newman, Andrews, Rosen, Kopel, Carroll, etc.) reviews on this new book. They should also address Alito/GWB, both are UCMJ felons, AWOLees, and both guilty of illegal separation and discharge.
May 28, 2008
8:30 PM
Garr writes:
The Bush White House made "a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed" - a time when the nation was on the brink of war
Lots of people including Powell warned him not to do this. Bush Senior himself did not go into Iraq. GWB did not listen.
"In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage," McClellan writes
The Faith Book talks about this intel which was cherry picked to make the case for war.
"McClellan admits that some of his own words from the podium in the White House briefing room turned out to be "badly misguided." But he says he was sincere at the time"
Scott is trying to save his own skin.
He also blames the media whose questions he fielded, calling them "complicit enablers" in the White House campaign to manipulate public opinion toward the need for war.
No much of the media reporting no Wmds was squelched. much dissent was squelched. Even Powell was coerced into making the Un case for war.
""But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. ... In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security."
This is just like saying sorry I didnt know what I was doing. No Bush was told what would happen
As Paul o neil and Jack Straw said He alread made up his mind for war.
May 28, 2008
10:13 PM
JW writes:
"Am I missing something here?"
As usual, yes. What are you missing? Lets take a look.
"Why does JW keep excusing Clinton by claiming Bush and Reagan both lied as well"
Ok, how does saying these guys all lied make it "excusing Clinton"? I haven't defended the man's lying. What you are missing here is the whole premise of what I have been saying (which you wouldn't miss if you took that critical thinking class I keep recommending). What is that premise? That Shaggy is a partisan hack, as evidenced by his hatred of Clinton for lying, and his lack of that same hatred for Republicans who did the same. Its not about the lying, or he'd hate them both.
NONE of that is an "excusing Clinton" type sentiment. The man lied. Pure and simple. Its just the double standard required to hate Clinton and still like the Republican lying Presidents that I was commenting on.
"When did Bush or Reagan lie under oath before a grand jury?"
Two problems with this statement. One, Clinton wasn't ever convicted of lying to a grand jury. This means he was exonerated in a court of law. That means your statement is BS from the start, as it is nothing but your opinion, which the court of law disagreed with. Second, a President lying isn't ONLY a problem if its in front of a grand jury. I don't know how many times YOU have bitched about Clinton's lying KW, but its been ALOT, and not always just about "lying to a grand jury".
"Just to claim they probably lied to someone, somewhere in their term of office isn't exactly the same thing there JW."
Ahhh. Gota love this. Yet another example of partisan hackery. KW CLEARLY remembers teh facts around Clintons lying in great detail (accept the fact that a court of law didn't think Clinton lied). True to his partisan leaning, hes completely forgotten Reagan getting up on tv and telling the nation his administration "Did not sell arms to Iran". Two weeks later, he was up there again telling us that yes, in fact they DID sell arms to Iran, but they didn't trade them for hostages. A while later, it came out that yes, we did in fact trade those arms for the hostages, though we also charged a fee for them. So technically we agreed to sell arms to Iran in trade for the hostages. I guess that means Reagan only lied once, not twice? On national tv.
But that's ok, right KW? Reagan was a Republican, so hes not a lying scumbag like Clinton.
As far as Bush goes, he either lied about Iraq to get the American people to buy into the war, or he was mislead so badly by his administration that he was unfit for office. And we haven't even gotten to his complete mismanagement of the war, which was so bad it should probably be considered criminal.
May 29, 2008
6:26 AM
basehitt writes:
We are all uncomfortable and annoyed when we find that our elected officials have been less than truthful with us; but come on people. On the one hand we have Bill Clinton who lied about having oral sex. The cost was several million dollars wasted "investigating" the matter and a profound loss of respect for the man himself. Then we have George Bush who by omission or comission has lied about Iraq. The cost to date has been several BILLION dollars, instability in the Middle East, over 4,000 deaths, over 20,000 wounded and no end in sight. We have a real, current problem and a leader who does not deserve our trust.
May 29, 2008
6:34 AM
Joseph writes:
I agree many have known this all along. It's about time Scott came out and told his account first hand. Everybody knows you have to be loyal to Bush and his cronies (even if it lands you in jail).
They all should be indicted and incarcerated. It's too bad others in the Bush administration don't have the guts Scott does.
May 29, 2008
10:06 AM
KW writes:
JW - Please stop confusing me with your paranoid psitsofrenia foes. You'd be hard pressed to find a comment from me regarding Clinton and the blow job lies. That topic just doesn't seem to do much for me.
Why do you think you remember me bringing it up "ALOT?"
As far as claiming since Clinton wasn't "found" guilty by the courts of lying under oath then he's innocent, do you feel the same about OJ?
Now, back topic, what evidence do you have that McClellan is being honest now? Is it just because Charles B swallows this nonstory H, L & S (that's Hook, Line & Sinker for you nonfishing types) that you feel the need to follow suit?
May 29, 2008
10:43 AM
Anonymous writes:
"JW - Please stop confusing me with your paranoid psitsofrenia foes. You'd be hard pressed to find a comment from me regarding Clinton and the blow job lies. That topic just doesn't seem to do much for me."
Eh, whatever.
"Why do you think you remember me bringing it up "ALOT?""
Youre a wingnut. So much so that when I say Clinton is just like Reagan and Bush in the lying department, you feel its "excusing Clinton".
"As far as claiming since Clinton wasn't "found" guilty by the courts of lying under oath then he's innocent, do you feel the same about OJ?"
No, I don't feel the same about it.
"Now, back topic, what evidence do you have that McClellan is being honest now?"
I've seen enough of former administration people making the same claims, including CIA personnel, Richard Armitage, etc. etc. I've told you about Frontline before. There are several books out there that have already gone over this stuff.
"Is it just because Charles B swallows this nonstory H, L & S (that's Hook, Line & Sinker for you nonfishing types) that you feel the need to follow suit?"
Im not "following suit". Agian, Ive seen the stuff McClellan is saying now talked about before by people I find credible. This stuff may be new to YOU, and it may be that you know so little about what McClellan is saying that you can decide whether its credible or not based on pure fallacy (he was lying then which makes him uncredible now, or hes just out to make a buck), but Im not in that unfortunate position. I knew about this stuff before the guy started writing his book.
May 29, 2008
10:46 AM
JW writes:
"JW - Please stop confusing me with your paranoid psitsofrenia foes. You'd be hard pressed to find a comment from me regarding Clinton and the blow job lies. That topic just doesn't seem to do much for me."
Eh, whatever.
"Why do you think you remember me bringing it up "ALOT?""
Youre a wingnut. So much so that when I say Clinton is just like Reagan and Bush in the lying department, you feel its "excusing Clinton".
"As far as claiming since Clinton wasn't "found" guilty by the courts of lying under oath then he's innocent, do you feel the same about OJ?"
No, I don't feel the same about it.
"Now, back topic, what evidence do you have that McClellan is being honest now?"
I've seen enough of former administration people making the same claims, including CIA personnel, Richard Armitage, etc. etc. I've told you about Frontline before. There are several books out there that have already gone over this stuff.
"Is it just because Charles B swallows this nonstory H, L & S (that's Hook, Line & Sinker for you nonfishing types) that you feel the need to follow suit?"
Im not "following suit". Agian, Ive seen the stuff McClellan is saying now talked about before by people I find credible. This stuff may be new to YOU, and it may be that you know so little about what McClellan is saying that you can decide whether its credible or not based on pure fallacy (he was lying then which makes him uncredible now, or hes just out to make a buck), but Im not in that unfortunate position. I knew about this stuff before the guy started writing his book.
May 29, 2008
12:18 PM
Charles_B writes:
KW:
Either he's a liar or a truth-teller, make up your mind.
If he's a truth-teller, then his book is quite incriminating.
If he's a liar then he was standing at the podium lying for three years for Bush, which is even more incriminating.
Either way, dead-enders like you are sore because this pops your delusional balloons of trust in Bush and Co..
Funny stuff.
May 29, 2008
5:19 PM
Raysmom writes:
I don't think this is funny at all, but maybe that's because I'm not into snarky self-satisfaction at the expense of my country.
Has anyone seen the South Park episode where half the town is conservative extremists and half the town is liberal extremists? Such foolishness! And when one person tries to get them to see that they are all partly wrong and partly right, and that they need each other, then they kill him?
This is an excerpt from a report on MSNBC today on McClellan's book:
"McClellan’s book surprised observers of all stripes, who noted that it was highly unusual for former spokesmen to so sharply criticize the policies and actions they had spent so much time advocating.
“I have a view that you just don’t do that,” said Democratic strategist Jennifer Palmieri, who was deputy White House press secretary during the Clinton administration.
“You make that bargain” you join a political leader’s press operation, Palmieri said on MSNBC. “If it was that bad why did he stay?”"
This from a Democrat! Good for her! Not all Democrats and not all Republicans are extremists, and extremist create problems- they never solve them.
I was not there, and neither were any of you. So why is everybody so sure that they are dead right and that everyone who disagrees "slithers", as one poster put it?
I must admit, as a registered Democrat, I would have had more respect for McClellan if he had come out with this without it being a money making venture. Regardless of how much you hate Bush, you must admit that this is very suspect, and certainly not an iron-clad indictment of our entry into Iraq. There are much better resources to base your opinion on, if you will take the time and have an open mind, on both sides.
May 29, 2008
6:02 PM
Tree writes:
Raysmom-
I could throw you in my time machine, you pick the century, I'll pick the lesson. History repeats itself. Bush/Cheney have theirs and they aren't sharing. ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh1qWZWNGGE&feature=related
May 29, 2008
9:54 PM
Charles_B writes:
Raysmom, registered Concern Troll, said:
"I don't think this is funny at all, but maybe that's because I'm not into snarky self-satisfaction at the expense of my country."
Excuse me? How does my finding it funny and satisfying that Bush administration lies are being exposed by one of their own coming at the "expense of my country"?
A cause and effect formula will do.
In fact, *any and all* revelations that help lift the veil of deception from this administration's multiple faces is a *benefit* for this country.
Apparently you would rather parse the source than embrace the truth from wherever it comes.
I think the self-satisfaction around here is being projected and displayed by *you*.
May 30, 2008
8:46 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Somebody needs to castrate our Federal government writes:
Bush reaped what he sowed. McClellan was obviously a Democrat whose real opinion is now clear. He was a whore while in the Whitehouse, and he is a whore now. Is anyone really surprised that whores inhabit D.C. ?
May 30, 2008
11:50 AM
JimClem writes:
You have to be kidding! Now you are calling Scott McClellan a liberal and a Democrat? That is your defense to his comments about the Bush administration?
When are the right wingers going to take responsibility for anything they do? If anyone ever disagrees with them, then that person is either a traitor or (even worse) a liberal. Someday you are going to have to skip the ad homonym attacks and talk about the policy in question.
May 30, 2008
2:20 PM
KW writes:
This is just too rich. McClellan was giving press releases as recent as last April... while he was writing the book... talking out of one side while writing out of the other.
Gee, those are such great credentials. It's no wonder CB and JW are in awe over this book.
All I've read so far are exurbs (I can't see wasting money on buying this trash) but I can see clear trend in McClellan's muse... he has a multitude of assertions but he hasn't even one ounce of evidence to back up these assertions.
I guess he figured this would be alright considering the demographic he was pandering to was rather small and insignificant. He knew these people who actually buy the book would never think to ask for any real or even remotely plausible evidence.
The man's a genius!
June 2, 2008
8:09 AM
Anonyomous writes:
Hogar is writing about his kids again.