[Chinasaur]

This is a loyal Bushie from his Texas days...he left on good terms.

And the goons in the WH call him disgruntled... Notice..NOBODY today is disputing his words.. NOBODY is disputing what he has written.. just attacking him... just typical Right Wing Nut Job™ character assassination.

They've already begun to try to "diminish" his book..but you can't overlook the fact that this guy was deep inside the WH for a loong time.

Too funny...

Of course, to all the members of the 789th Holier Than Thou Keyboard Brigade™, who slaver all over themselves egging OTHERS to go kill for America instead of going themselves, there is nothing in this book they will believe, hear or even read.

But for those who think..this is yet another piece of information pointing to the ongoing deception that is the hallmark of the Bush era..the most shameful chapter in our nations history.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

--Republican President Theodore Roosevelt

[Eug]

Sometimes it helps to post the person's name, and/or article about said person.

[Chuckit]

He's talking about former White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

[ironknee]

if anything, the press was soft... too soft...

imbedded reporters... reporters who were reporting about the people that were protecting them

sweet deal!

[BRussell]

He's about to get hit. Hard. Good. He deserves it, if he was knowingly shoveling it.

[peeb]

The whole concept of a press core is bogus.

[Lint Police]

Yep, gonna believe a guy trying to sell books. If you think the guy is an ass and wanna be a stand up person, come out like a man and say it while you are working there. For profit later makes you look like a douche.

[- - e r i k - -]

What? Bush can do no wrong! Clearly this "press secretary" is a sham and a huckster!!

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

He's about to get hit. Hard. Good. He deserves it, if he was knowingly shoveling it.

Bush, you mean?

[olePigeon]

So far, not a single person in the Administration has said he's lied. They've been shocked, saddened, hurt, surprised, and even disgruntled, but none of them are denying the accusations.

It's interesting that it really does paint George Bush as nothing more than a puppet to his advisors, assuming what McClellan says is true.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So far, not a single person in the Administration has said he's lied. They've been shocked, saddened, hurt, surprised, and even disgruntled, but none of them are denying the accusations.

It's often difficult to deny someone else's perceptions. How can one argue that McClellan saw Bush wipe a tear from his eye, and that McClellan felt in that moment that the President regretted eveything? How an one deny that McClellan saw Rove and Libby go into a meeting, and that McClellan felt that they were going to discuss the Plame ordeal?

These aren't really deniable points. I've definitely heard folks disagree with his perceptions, though.

As for the ongoings in the Administration and White House that I've read or heard, I don't really have problems with the work atmosphere or operations. I've worked at big companies, and among a group of higher-ups, there are always unique combinations of personalities. So they pushed WMDS versus greater security via Middle East democracy establishment. It doesn't matter. They were so many winning arguments in my opinion for ousting Saddam... with what Bob Woodward wrote about having witnessed George Tenant tell GWB that finding WMD stockpiles in Iraq was a "slam dunk"... I think they made the best decision at the time.

It's interesting that it really does paint George Bush as nothing more than a puppet to his advisors, assuming what McClellan says is true.

Did you read the book, or only the press reports? I have not read the book, but I've read plenty of clippings. Sure sounds like McClellan had a lot going on in his head. It sounds as if he thinks he is better than all his superiors, which is a common sentiment when people are forced out of their job.

An interesting sidenote is that McClellan's dad's law firm represented L.B.J. After L.B.J. died, he wrote a book alleging L.B.J. had J.F.K killed J.F.K.

I'm thinking that if I'm a powerful leader, I'm not going to hire a McClellan.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It's interesting that it really does paint George Bush as nothing more than a puppet to his advisors, assuming what McClellan says is true.

You know, I've often felt that may be true. I think he has done best on the issues where he has the most personal experience, and worst on issues where he has the least experience. For example, on immigration, which he definitely knows first-hand from being a governor of Texas, and on education, which he was heavily involved with as governor, I think he has rational, defensible positions. On issues like foreign policy and war, where he had no experience and probably just took the advice of those who surrounded him, I think he has been utterly insane.

[Chuckit]

They wouldn't be denying his feelings. They'd be saying his feelings were wrong.

[ironknee]

he was told to lie

[paul w]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

They were so many winning arguments in my opinion for ousting Saddam... with what Bob Woodward wrote about having witnessed George Tenant tell GWB that finding WMD stockpiles in Iraq was a "slam dunk"... I think they made the best decision at the time.

At the time they made it seem pressing, urgent. Now now now! That equates to a serious security risk in the form of WMD and so on. Lots of folks were swayed on this argument. Fine, you want to say that the intelligence was wrong?

But whatever happend to "the buck stops here". Who is ultimately responsible for this hurried, ill conceived mess we're in now?

[BRussell]

Now wait a sec. He's saying that Bush misled the country into war?!?!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Now wait a sec. He's saying that Bush misled the country into war?!?!

That was my initial thought when I heard about this.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I just... I just don't care anymore. This proves nothing, this changes nothing, and honestly, this doesn't tell us anything a lot of didn't suspect anyway.

[BRussell]

Yeah this has about as much impact as the WSJ saying that Apple is going to release a 3G iphone.

[ironknee]

is anyone really surprised that bush lied?

anyone watch hbo's recount?.. makes you mad and sad

[TheWOAT]

How was that movie? I heard it was really biased, but entertaining. Will wait for the DVD (or bootleg).

[Chongo]

Those who know him say this book is not his style of writing. He has acknowledged that the editor "tweaked" the book prior to publication.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Those who know him say this book is not his style of writing. He has acknowledged that the editor "tweaked" the book prior to publication.

And now you're telling me that the editor edited the book?!?!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

How was that movie? I heard it was really biased, but entertaining. Will wait for the DVD (or bootleg).

very entertaining...what's her name was great as Katherine Harris

btw has anyone ever used cocaine? do you think you could forget do it?

[besson3c]

I find it amazing that the knee jerk reaction of Republicans around here is to find some way to comfort themselves into believing that this isn't true - as if it would be so astonishingly hard to believe if it was, regardless of what party was involved.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

And now you're telling me that the editor edited the book?!?!

I know how you all love FNC
RedLasso - Ari Fleischer comments on Scott McClellan tell-all book

Rudy Giuliani shrugs off the impact of the book, and notes that past presidents got plagued by sell-out former staffers, too:

[besson3c]

Bush sucks. Let the fireworks begin!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Those who know him say this book is not his style of writing. He has acknowledged that the editor "tweaked" the book prior to publication.

wow, i just watched the fox news clip that said exactly the same thing! you guys can't think for yourselves?

this implies that scott doesn't really believe all this and did it for the money...

so the question is, why would scott let some liberal editor write his book for the money and make all his former "friends" angry at him? why?

would you let some liberal write a book with your name on it saying you love the clintons?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

so the question is, why would scott let some liberal editor write his book for the money and make all his former "friends" angry at him? why?

Heh. It's humorous when people answer their own question in the question itself.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Heh. It's humorous when people answer their own question in the question itself.

well, would you let some liberal write a book with your name on it saying you love the clintons?

for the money?

apparently Scott didn't tell his friends that he was only doing it for the money... cause they are attacking him

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

well, would you let some liberal write a book with your name on it saying you love the clintons?

I'm not a political hack that needs to cash in before my former boss is out of office and nobody gives a good rat's ass, so personally, I've no need.

And anyway, I do love the clintons, by CRASH HARDDRIVE.

Why would I need a liberal to write that for me? Where's my check?

apparently Scott didn't tell his friends that he was only doing it for the money... cause they are attacking him

Why would he bother?

[ironknee]

[QUOTE=CRASH HARDDRIVE;3664566]I'm not a political hack that needs to cash in before my former boss is out of office and nobody gives a good rat's ass, so personally, I've no need.

And anyway, I do love the clintons, by CRASH HARDDRIVE.

Why would I need a liberal to write that for me? Where's my check?/QUOTE]

why would scott need one if this is not the real scott writing?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Why would he bother?

explain

[besson3c]

So what do you guys make of the Richard Clarke book, or the Paul Bremer or George Tenant books? What about the negative things that Colin Powell has said? Are these guys all cashing out too?

[hyteckit]

President Bush, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney are all lying scumbags.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So what do you guys make of the Richard Clarke book, or the Paul Bremer or George Tenant books? What about the negative things that Colin Powell has said? Are these guys all cashing out too?

[besson3c]

How about Harriet Miers not showing up at her hearing? Sara Taylor? Karl Rove refusing to testify? Water boarding?

You guys can, and I'm sure will try to dismiss each of these (and other) cases one by one, but at this point I think that it is pretty hard to look at the overall picture and the patterns that have emerged and have any logical reason to trust this administration.

Therefore, again, it's astonishing that people here feel compelled to defend this administration even when they don't even know exactly what they are defending, having not read the book.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

why would scott need one if this is not the real scott writing?

Because he's a name. Some ghost-hack that wrote the actual text wouldn't be listened to- why would anyone care?

explain

What's to explain? Why would you need, seek, or in any way expect the approval of people you're out to backstab?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Therefore, again, it's astonishing that people here feel compelled to defend this administration even when they don't even know exactly what they are defending, having not read the book.

Who's defending the administration? You merely imagined that.

Just no one with a brain needs to hear from some disgruntled mouthpiece about how a politicians is a scumbag. We all know politicians are scumbags.

It's kind of a douche move to do years after the fact, in direct contradiction to statements the person made before, when it's so obvious that it's merely for profit.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Who's defending the administration? You merely imagined that.

Just no one with a brain needs to hear from some disgruntled mouthpiece about how a politicians is a scumbag. We all know politicians are scumbags.

It's kind of a douche move to do years after the fact, in direct contradiction to statements the person made before, when it's so obvious that it's merely for profit.

I frankly think that all white house press secretaries are douches, but if you want to think of him as a douche, go right ahead, I really don't care, I'm really not interested in the character analysis but rather what is being said.

This is a pattern with many of you guys: a story like this breaks, instead of examining what is being said you guys revert to a character analysis similar to this based on your gut feelings and flimsy half truths. If you have any justification for yourself, you discard absolutely everything that was said - all x number of pages of this book in this case. You did this for the sane interview that Wright gave, with Sheehan, Richard Clarke, Michael Moore, Al Gore, and probably dozens others that I'm not able to recall right now.

If the push/pull nature of these debates really necessitate that we say that McClellan or whomever is a complete jerk, douche, liar, eats babies, whatever, so be it... I think I speak for just about everybody here when I assume that calling, say, Al Gore a turd face does not spring his army of devout fans to action - I don't think the emotional attachment is there. It would be super nice if, instead of the character analysis, we actually delve into what is being said for a change.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Wright gave, with Sheehan, Richard Clarke, Michael Moore, Al Gore, and probably dozens others that I'm not able to recall right now.

What a way to try and make your case, by listing a whole litany of crackpots, all of which have been caught telling complete untruths for political ends. Just because you don't like the fact that others have gone through and caught people you blindly agree with being less than honest, doesn't make it untrue. People question things, not just blindly accept- whether you like that or not.

If the push/pull nature of these debates really necessitate that we say that McClellan or whomever is a complete jerk, douche, liar...

he was either lying when he said statements to the exact contrary of what he's saying now, or lying now. Either way, you- not me- are assigning credit to someone who is clearly willing to lie, and spin someone else's line for his own reasons. If you couldn't trust him doing that before- why do you all of a sudden blindly trust him now?

Oh wait.... let me guess.....



....this time he's spinning a line that YOU want to hear!

Gee!

It's being a douche not to have stood up years ago. Coming out with all this- and really, there's nothing really eye-opening or particularly revealing, certainly nothing new- years after the fact simply smacks of looking to cash-in. By the way, it's happened in virtually every presidential administration. Only political hacks seem to get all that excited over it.

[Powerbook]

Clearly this traitor is paid by the Frenchie's!!! You know, they eat cheese , are communist socialist and say surrender.
I thank George Bush jr. every day that he saved us from the mighty Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which would have been ready in 45 minutes. And they had yellow cake from Niger, too!

Regards,
PB.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Because he's a name. Some ghost-hack that wrote the actual text wouldn't be listened to- why would anyone care?



What's to explain? Why would you need, seek, or in any way expect the approval of people you're out to backstab?

the question is why would he back stab his friends for money? again would you?

if a former clinton press secretary came out with a book that told the truth about clinton, would you still be bashing the guy or would you praise him?

i bet i know...shhh no you go ahead

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Who's defending the administration? You merely imagined that.

Just no one with a brain needs to hear from some disgruntled mouthpiece about how a politicians is a scumbag. We all know politicians are scumbags.

so by your logic, no one should ever write about politicians' lies because we all know it... right?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's kind of a douche move to do years after the fact, in direct contradiction to statements the person made before, when it's so obvious that it's merely for profit.

wow that is exactly what bill /fox said... almost verbatim.

you don't think people need time/space to reflect?

[peeb]

Come on. He's trying to cleanse his soul by coming clean and admitting what they did. That's not stabbing his friends in the back.

[Dakar the Fourth]

What a better way to cleanse your soul than by doing a profitable book, rather than spending an hour on Larry King Live or some other news network show.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

What a way to try and make your case, by listing a whole litany of crackpots, all of which have been caught telling complete untruths for political ends. Just because you don't like the fact that others have gone through and caught people you blindly agree with being less than honest, doesn't make it untrue. People question things, not just blindly accept- whether you like that or not.


he was either lying when he said statements to the exact contrary of what he's saying now, or lying now. Either way, you- not me- are assigning credit to someone who is clearly willing to lie, and spin someone else's line for his own reasons. If you couldn't trust him doing that before- why do you all of a sudden blindly trust him now?

bush trusted him.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Oh wait.... let me guess.....



....this time he's spinning a line that YOU want to hear!

Gee!

It's being a douche not to have stood up years ago. Coming out with all this- and really, there's nothing really eye-opening or particularly revealing, certainly nothing new- years after the fact simply smacks of looking to cash-in. By the way, it's happened in virtually every presidential administration. Only political hacks seem to get all that excited over it.

sorry crash, not to pick on you but you make it too easy

so you ask why scott didn't come out with this or resign when it was happening right?

if he had a book back then, or stood up, would that make it better for you?


and if it happens in all admins, we shouldn't ever look into them? just let them be?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

What a better way to cleanse your soul than by doing a profitable book, rather than spending an hour on Larry King Live or some other news network show.

Hey, it's America. PaperNotes said that capitalism and consumerism will solve anything.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I think the Catholic Church could benefit from paying people to do public confessionals.

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's being a douche not to have stood up years ago. Coming out with all this- and really, there's nothing really eye-opening or particularly revealing, certainly nothing new- years after the fact simply smacks of looking to cash-in. By the way, it's happened in virtually every presidential administration. Only political hacks seem to get all that excited over it.

Nobody is blindly trusting him. I don't think this has happened in virtually every presidential administration, not nearly to the same extent at least.

Is it exciting? Well, most of us already knew that he was lying before. You fell for his lies and now want to say that he is lying now so you don't look so stupid. But you have a pretty hard case to make.

[besson3c]

tie: well, there are people that will tell us that our polar ice caps aren't melting...