"The Bush Legacy" from the McClellan Chronicles

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by diesel96, May 28, 2008.

  1. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html

    To those you who claim after time Bush will go down in history as a great president, read and weep. John McCain I suggest you stop taking photo ops and fund raising events with the president.

    "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."

    Here's an excerpt from the book:
    "The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby".
    "There was one problem. It was not true.
    I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."
     
  2. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Wonder if something to do with his employment suddenly made him realize that he was delving out false information. Its too bad he has to drop to the level of making baseless accusations in a book in order to keep the money flowing in.
     
  3. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned

    Ahhh,

    Let the character assassinations begin. True to form, the republicans are out in force making the cable news and radio talk show circuits blasting Scott McClellan for his "tell-all" book.

    Initially, they came out and all said in unity, "these are not scotts words", "this is the liberal press editing his words", "this is what the liberal publishers can do"....

    Subsequently, Scott McClellan came out and gave his own press conference where he stated: "these are my words, nobody changed them and I have a message for the American people in my book"

    Now the fun and games begin.

    Starting with Orielly last night, he claimed that the book deal was no more than the liberal media getting a hold of Scott and forcing him to sell out for cash while implying they coerced him to manufacture the information in the book.

    Now all the other right wing loons are following suit. Hannity, Rush, Laura Ingram, Jason Lewis, Al Rantal and the others are flying the same story today.

    "Its all about cash" Those damn liberals.

    What a crock.

    I realize the truth hurts, but I give credit to Scott McClellan for having "SACK".

    Despite going up against the very political machine he has been a part of since Bush was Governor of Texas, he chose to stand up and clear his conscience.

    The very weight of his participation in lies and distortions that have caused the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians, the thousands of US service personel, the wasted trillions of dollars and the chaos that is our current economy took its toll on McClellan.

    While self serving indeed, he outed the President and his staff for what they are LIARS.

    In fact, he calls the Bush White house worse than the Clinton Administration.

    Coming from a man with FIRST HAND knowledge, his story is not new, most americans already know the president and vice president are liars (with the exception of a few on this board) but nonetheless, Scott felt the need to communicate to the american public the truth.

    This truth is embraced by milions of people around the world.

    The final blow to an American President riddled with scandal and dishonor.

    Now, all the right wing whackos will do everything possible to destroy Scott McClellans integrity. As you listen to your favorite loon on conservative radio today, count how many times you hear he did it for the money the left wing radical liberal media paid him to do it.

    Concentrate on the message, by the end of next week, you all will be saying he did it for the money cause the radical extremist leftest liberal elitest press paid him to do so.

    I am surprised no one on this blog has done so already, surely Big Arrow would have posted this already.

    Its a sad day for republicans again, the truth comes out, a president is embarassed and an administration is further stained by its own incompetence.

    Kudos Scott McClellan.

    Peace:peaceful:
     
  4. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Ah, let the blind acceptance begin!

    I have my own suspicions that some of his book may be true, but as the great President Ronald Reagan once said "Trust, but verify." From what I gather some of what McClellan claims was said were situations and meetings that he was not present for. McClellan claims the larger message of this book was to help end partisan fighting, but in the real world this only magnifies it. Now Congress is trying to subpoena McClellan to find out how much truth is really in his book on topics that have already made it through the court system. I have my suspicions about both sides, but in usual leftist fashion you embrace the book as the whole truth and nothing but the truth because thats what you want to hear.
     
  5. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Dana Perino
    "Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," said current White House press secretary Dana Perino, a former deputy to McClellan. "We are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew."

    [​IMG]

    I've been hearing all day yesterday sychronized regimented Republican talking points for example words and phrases like "Puzzeled" "harbored" "not the Scott that we know" "edited by the Liberal Press"....as if the White house has scripted it's rebuttle and sent damage control surrogates and memos to help sweep under the radar.
     
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I had no idea Dana was that cute!
    :happy-very:

    Scott's father was also a published author (Barr McClellan) who wrote about LBJ and the JFK assassination. Can't remember the exact title but it's still availble on Amazon and Barnes and Noble if you want to look it up.

    I suspect Scott will be the first of many to come as the Bush era ends and history begins to write about our time. Paul O'Neil was the first but Scott is considered more an insider. I do think that had Bush chosen someone other than Cheney as VP who then lined the adminstration with those loyal to a political agenda and not to the cause of America, the Bush that Scott knew from Texas would more than likely have been the President of the last 8 years instead of what we got. I also believe that had there been no Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz or Perle that after 9/11 we would have gotten Osama and his hoarde and there would be no Al Qaeda presence in the Pakistan/Afghanistan frontier/tribual lands as they are now. I also believe it possible that Saddam would have either been marginalized if not out of power and that there would be no Ahmadinejad in Iran as the pro western democracy movement in Iran that was gaining strenght in the late 90's would have grown in power to become a force. Only now is that starting to come back as the Iranian legislative Speaker just elected is a rival to Ahmadinejad and some believe a potential force to qwell the radical elelment in Iran.

    There has been a lot of issues boiling just beneath the surface in this country and I welcome Scott's book if it proves a catalyst in bringing all this out into the open light of day. It's past time the Amerrican people get all the facts where ever they may take us and in whatever direction. If Scott's action do this, then I consider him a patriot in the first order!

    JMO
     
  7. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member


    Hey when you post this I wonder if you remember what the Rumsfield plan for Iraq was. If you remember he wanted to do something more like Afghanistan instead of a full scale invasion. In hindsight his plan may have worked.
     
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Yeah, maybe he wouldn't have got fired!

    :happy-very:

    It's hard to say whether it would work or not but it does make for a good "what if" question.
     
  9. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Scott, meet the underside of the GOP bus…
    This is great entertainment watching them eating their own, Scotty being the latest. I need more popcorn…
    Well, it looks as if the order for that extra porch rocking chair Bush promised McClellan is being cancelled.
    ….My guess is, Scotty is trying to use some of his knoledge to escape persecution or having to testify in the future…:wink2:
    I remember watching Scotty squirm & sweat. Sometimes he’d look kind of flushed, other times pale and nervous. He wasn’t very good at lying. Not like the others who have held that position in this administration.
    A man's got to make a living, sure he wrote the book for money, because Fox News would'nt hire him, they already have Tony Snow.
    How does McBush feel about his “experience” and “decision making” , now that its been revealed he was conned like a Republican Senator in a Minneapolis restroom ?
    I'm impressed, a couple of our resident BC Reich wing experts on this thread have inside info and access to Rumsfeld's war intent and to McClellan's participation with the Bush Cabinet. What's next..blame it on Clinton?
     
  10. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Well it is just hard to believe that so many people now pin the Iraq invasion on him.
     
  11. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    People blame Bush for just about any problems in the country today. The fact is that 99.99% of the blame for an individual's problems should be aimed at someone else instead of Bush. That someone is the person staring back at that individual from their mirror.
     
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I know what you mean. All those Bush voters as they look in the mirror should be ashamed of themselves!

    :happy-very:

    McClellan's book has caused an obvious stir really on both sides of the Iraq war issue but as more comes out, I wonder how he (McClellan) might be vindicated as folks do some data mining from years past and compare things like this http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm with some of the allegations that McClellan makes in his book?

    McClellan's book in some sense is perfect timing in respect to Pat Buchanan's new book which takes a very provacative look at WW2.


    Pat Buchanan on AntiwarRadio with Charles Goyette
     
  13. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    McClatchy (formerly Knight-Ridder) was pretty much the only major news service organization that was questioning the administration's claims in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Here's their take on McClellan's book ( a day late and a dollar short basically): click
     
  14. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Just wondering if you have read the book by McClellan yet. I heard him on an interview a couple of days ago say that nowhere in his book did he make the claim that anyone lied. It seemed in the Buchanan interview he was also saying the same thing. I'm not gonna take the time to read it I'm way behind on my reading list now. If you or anyone else has read it and can be honest it would satisfy my curiosity to see if his interview that I heard gels with his book.
     
  15. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    I suspect it's all going to come down to what your definition of "lying" is. My understanding is that he does in fact say that he was lied to, specifically when he was told that neither Rove nor Libby had anything to do with the Valerie Plame leak. Maybe he just says they "misled" him, or something like that. I didn't see the interview. I can assure you I won't read the book, it sounds pretty vapid.
     
  16. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Is that the same thing as it depends on what your definition of is, is? Anyway thanks for the reply even though you didn't read the book either.
     
  17. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I'm actually waiting on my copy as we speak although I've read some as my neighbor has it. From what I've read from various sections, McClellan still holds Bush in high esteem and in many areas he highly compliments the President. Scott talks about the man he knew as governor of Texas and how the continous campaign in Washington changed him and I can see where he has a point. I think no matter who gets elected, no matter their intentions, Washington will change them. The treachery of Rome are the chickens that have come home to roost!

    The one area that Scott is most critical is the Washington climate of continuos campaign which he believes causes or forces if you will for political adminstration to never admit they made a mistake. I mean, just look at us here to each other when we make a mistake (even an honest,innocent mistake) and then magnify that 1000 times and you've got a good idea of that climate in Washington. Your only option for survival is to stay the course, right, wrong or otherwise and if that means cooking, loading or whatever to the facts to support your position, then so be it.

    Just look back at the 90's with Clinton and his marriage failures. What would have been done had Clinton come forth and admitted his faults with all forthright and honesty? He'd have been crucified and there are some actions in the manner of law that are concerning, no argument, but it was never about fulfilling and honoring the law but rather getting a political advantage. His skirt chasing was the excuse and yes it was bad, no argument from me.

    In the 1990's after the republicans took over Congress, Clinton and Gore proposed a plan to privatize Social Security. What did the republicans do? They opposed it or rather blocked it because to let something like this go through and be successful would place a lot of political leveage with the democrats. A lot of the outspoken democrat opponents to Bush's plan in the 90's uttered not a peep of objection but when the issue and roles reversed after the 2000' elections, you might as well had these people in theater and had them change their Shakespearan masks as it was all political theater.

    In the 1990's, the republicans were the antiwar party so to speak and spoke often and hard against Clinton and his Balkans policy as nationbuilding and interventionist. According to the republicans, Nationbuilding was wrong and evil. BTW: take a long look sometime at the "NeoCon" policy wonks of the Bush adminstration back in the 1990's and you'll see full support for Clinton's policy and for him to even go further.

    Bush, in the leadup to election in 2000' on many occassions spoke against Nationbuilding and a more "non-interventionist" foreign policy. But then abandoned those principles once he was in control but I do agree with Scott in that the polcy was more driven by those around Bush. Once they had Bush neck deep, he had no other course but to continue forth and justify the cause. Again, it's the continous campaign that is the culprit. Those democrat cheerleaders of 1990's nationstate and interventionism have themselves swapped masks with the republicans and are the voice of antiwar, anti-nationbuilding, etc. and it's silent partner the MSM (mainstreet media) has yet to utter a word of objectivity and ask the hard questions. All we get from them is a 30 second soundbite that boosts ratings and their advertising dollar revenue! They also can't afford to buck the system as they would lose access to the power players and this would leave other networks in a monopoly position and thus the corp. controllers would lose on their shareprice of their stock. Scott calls them to task as well and thus the media ain't to happy with him either. A discredited McClellan could clear the good name of the media so where do you think they land in all of this?

    Scott's book is not focused on the Iraq war as much as it uses the Iraq war as example to shed light on this Washington climate and that is IMO getting lost all this because of the climate itself. It shows the actions of persons inside the gov't and the lenghts they will go too in order to protect themselves regardless of the cost to the nation. I mean, look at what Clinton did in his own case everytime something else came to light. That's what Scott is trying to get at and I welcome the fresh air although politcal policy Scott and I would differ. Iraq is only a symptom not the disease itself.

    At this time, the point of Scott's book IMO is being overlooked but then in the political climate of Washington DC, what would one expect! As far as Scott's allegations in his book on Iraq. There's nothing really new here, he just confirms from an inside source what so many already knew and expected and it's not that earth shattering at all. Scott's bigger message is one that several have cried time and time again only to be drowned out and I'd expect the same this time as well. It's already started with all the focus on Bush and Iraq in order that we don't understand the greater point Scott was making.

    JMO.
     
  18. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Jones,

    I think the Plame affair goes much deeper than we know. Sibel Edmonds is an FBI whistleblower and look at the "Dark Shadows" thread which is several pages back to learn more on her.

    Plame at the time was involved in a CIA operation whose cover was a legit business but goal ws to uncover secret nuke weapons and material transactions going on especially through the mideast with some focus on Pakistan. I honestly believe that certain persons within the adminstration have made deals with the devil so to speak as it relates to nuke transfers to Pakistan and possible other region "allies" and that Plame and her co-horts were getting to close to uncovering the entire deal.

    Plame was outted IMO not to discredit her husband Joe Wilson but rather to protect a network established by certain gov't underlings and certain aspects of the military industrial complex. Scott's comments on this in the book has more to do with Bush making the promise to fire anyone if they were found involved and then when Rove came to the surface, Bush protected Rove and they decided to let Libby be the fall guy so to speak. My guess is the last day Bush will pardon Libby and somewhere he'll get backpay for his loyality to the cause. He may even get celebrity status and his own TV shot like Col. North did for his loyality.
     
  19. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    BTW Jones,

    There is a good 2 part 60 minutes interview with Plame over on YouTube among other things. Charlie Rose also did a good interview with Plame but I've yet to find it at Youtube but I haven't checked the PBS website.
     
  20. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    And to Jones again,

    One of your fav's Glenn Greenwald (mine too) at Salon addressed the issue concerning Politico.com who managed to get an advance copy of McClellan's book and "out it" if you will ahead of the publishers release over this past weekend. I saw an interview yesterday on C-Span with the publushers talking of this. Once Politico on Wednesday outted the book, the publisher advanced their plans for release and freed the book stores to begin selling the book.

    Here's Glenn's piece from Salon that I happen to see posted over at Lew Rockwell.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/30/allen/index.html

    Interesting op-ed from the NYTimes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01richedit.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2008