Scott McClellan claims Bush misled US

One of the writers at the WP made the observation that McClellan's book will have very little real impact in that folks that haven't abandoned Bush yet are pretty immune to reason. Folks that still have the W stickers on their cars are pretty well pot committed at this point. Nothing, up to and including a rape conviction, will stop them from "standing by their man".

Nosferatu wrote:

Then again, doesn't almost all defense spending come straight back into the US economy (I'm fairly sure that all our stuff is bought from American companies if possible and obviously all of our soldiers are US citizens.)?

Most defense spending goes back into the US economy, but not "almost all." We routinely give European countries major contracts. Just recently the KC-X program, worth an estimated $40 billion (with a B) was awarded to a Northrop Grumman/EADS consortium that offered the KC-45. Northrop Grumman is American, EADS is not. The aircraft in question is based on the Airbus A330, meaning it was designed and built by France.

Non-citizens serving in the US armed forces is so common there are even government programs to expedite application for citizenship for men and women who enlist. Even illegal immigrants can join the military.

SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP.

America to McClellan:

IMAGE(http://movies.com/images/movies/c/CopLand_1997.jpg)

"You had an opportunity to make a difference and you BLEW IT."

George Tenet. Richard Clarke. Rand Beers. Paul O'Neill. David Kuo. John Dilulio. Eric Schaeffer. Bill Harlow. Christy Todd-Whitman. Eric Shinseki. David Iglesias. David Kay. Anthony Zinni. Lawrence Wilkerson. Matthew Dowd. Greg Thielmann. Jay Garner. John Brady Kiesling. Tom Ridge. John Brown. Charles Duelfer. Roger Cressey. Sibel Edmonds. Ken Mehlman. Karen Kwiatkowski. Joe Wilson. Thomas White. John Batiste. Paul Eaton. Tom Maertens. Coleen Rowley. Paul Bremer. John Danforth. Andrew Wilkie. Ann Wright. Mike Brown. Ken Adleman

The short list of former Bush folks who have cashed in on tell all books about the worst presidency of all time.

I don't think I'd count Eric Shinseki as a "Bush folk." He was on his way out during the run up for the war and he said a lot of things the Bush administration didn't want to hear. Things like occupation of Iraq requiring half a million soldiers. For a long time people were even saying Shinseki was forced to retire (though he had announced plans to retire before butting heads with Bush).

And in the end, there are three men who have stood by Bush through thick and thin, and they're who REALLY count: Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and James "Jeff Gannon" Guckert.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I don't think I'd count Eric Shinseki as a "Bush folk." He was on his way out during the run up for the war and he said a lot of things the Bush administration didn't want to hear. Things like occupation of Iraq requiring half a million soldiers. For a long time people were even saying Shinseki was forced to retire (though he had announced plans to retire before butting heads with Bush).

And in the end, there are three men who have stood by Bush through thick and thin, and they're who REALLY count: Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and James "Jeff Gannon" Guckert.

Do you think Cheney was part of that lust triangle? I heard the rumors about Rove and Guckert, but this Cheney revelation is a new one on me.

Theirs was more of a platonic relationship.

McClellan claimed in his Today Show interview today that it was not Dick Cheney who authorized the release of classified information to Lewis Libby to leak the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to the press in July of 2003, but rather George Bush himself, and that Bush confirmed this to him in 2006 during a trip when asked directly. This is the release that resulted in the exposure of Valerie Plame; it was a release of classified information and it was done by the White House solely for the purpose of discrediting her husband and the critics of the war. (This had previously come out in the Libby trial, but with Cheney claiming responsibility.)

McClellan: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

McClellan: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.

No wonder the White House is so desperate to paint him as a left-wing crazy. If half the stuff he's saying is true, there's got to be an impeachment.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
No wonder the White House is so desperate to paint him as a left-wing crazy. If half the stuff he's saying is true, there's got to be an impeachment.

OpEd piece in today's WSJ tells just that -- the publisher of the book is a part of a conglomerate that is controlled by a bank in which is owned by Soros and linked to Jim Johnson who is reported to do the VP candidate search for Obama. A conclusive proof is a left-wing battiness is obtained!

Hmm. And Michael Moore's books were published by Harper Collins. Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are part of the vast Left Wing Conspiracy too!!! Who would have known??

Wasn't Soros himself a similar hatchet job, painted as a liberal nutjob because he said things the right didn't like?

LOL @ the "7 Degrees of Barack Obama" re: the book publisher, but it's not all that surprising, especially considering the place in time we're in right now. I mean, would a conservative publisher ever pick something like this up right now, when it's almost officially now Obama vs. McCain?

As for the topic, I consider McClellan as just another former Bush crony now writing his own meal ticket by taking advantage of the public's now unquenchable thirst for digging up all the dirt available on this administration in hopes of an opportunity to break a collective foot off in their asses.

IMO, Scott belongs in the same special place in hell as George, Dick, Karl and the boys for saying all this now when the money is calling rather than having the balls to quit because of everything he wrote about. You can't spend 3 years covering up what you've pointed out as the shameful truth now and expect everyone to perceive you as victim and rally around you. Sure he'll get paid, but he's still just a corrupt sack of monkey crap like the rest of them.

Certainly he's no saint, Scurvy, but that's not nearly as important as whether or not what he says is true.

I like how the press and the Bush holdouts are claiming that the lefties are embracing McClellan now. I haven't seen ANYONE embracing him. If anything, the vast majority of the folks I hear chiming in are saying "no feces, genius. Why the hell are you cashing out now instead of doing your patriotic duty 4 years ago?".

Fcukwits.

Scott McClellan’s new book is causing the media’s heads to explode as well as Bush Co. since they were almost part of his cabinet at the time. Eric Boehlert wrote a very important column on the cold shoulder they gave Ted Kennedy’s very important anti-Iraq war speech back in 2002. The one that was ignored. I posted a prime example of the TV pundit class’ mentality called “Dan Abrams Wankery from 12/02/02 on Iraq.” Read the transcript and vomit. Where’s his public apology? I hope to see one soon.

Back to Boehlert:

Specifically, back in September 2002, with the Bush administration and much of the Beltway media rushing to embrace war with Iraq, Kennedy delivered a passionate, provocative, and newsworthy speech raising all sorts of doubts about a possible invasion. Unlike today, the political press wasn’t very interested in Kennedy or what he had to say about the most pressing issue facing the nation. Back in that media environment, being the voice of American liberals didn’t mean much.

That night on NBC’s Nightly News, just 32 words from the Kennedy address were excerpted. On ABC’s World News Tonight, it was 31 words. And on the CBS Evening News, 40 words. In all three instances, the brief mention of the Kennedy speech was part of a larger report on the looming possibility of war. Meaning, on none of the networks did Kennedy’s speech qualify as a stand-alone news even

The Kennedy coverage in the major newspapers wasn’t much better. At The Washington Post, Kennedy’s newsworthy speech, a clarion call against Bush’s pre-emptive war, garnered exactly one sentence — 36 words total in coverage. Keep in mind, during 2002, the Post published more than 1,000 articles and columns about Iraq, nearly 1 million words. But the Post set aside just 36 words for Kennedy’s farsighted war speech…read on

And of course there’s : “War Made Easy”: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death

War Made Easy reaches into the Orwellian memory hole to expose a 50-year pattern of government deception and media spin that has dragged the United States into one war after another from Vietnam to Iraq. Narrated by actor and activist Sean Penn, the film exhumes remarkable archival footage of official distortion and exaggeration from LBJ to George W. Bush, revealing in stunning detail how the American news media have uncritically disseminated the pro-war messages of successive presidential administrations.

LobsterMobster wrote:

there's got to be an impeachment.

We could only be so lucky.

ranalin wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

there's got to be an impeachment.

We could only be so lucky.

As bad as things are with the Bush presidency, I don't think it is in anyone's interest to impeach at this point. The run is almost over and an impeachment would give the mouth breathers another grudge (e.g.: the Nixon impeachment) to grind for the next 50 years. Better to be magnanimous and remind folks that things will be this bad again if any of those criminals ever make it back into office.

They have managed to take a GOP that should have been a 50 year dynasty and made it into an object lesson in greed, incompetence, and arrogance. Anyone who votes for a Republican in the next election cycle needs to have his head examined.

Paleocon wrote:
ranalin wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

there's got to be an impeachment.

We could only be so lucky.

As bad as things are with the Bush presidency, I don't think it is in anyone's interest to impeach at this point. The run is almost over and an impeachment would give the mouth breathers another grudge (e.g.: the Nixon impeachment) to grind for the next 50 years. Better to be magnanimous and remind folks that things will be this bad again if any of those criminals ever make it back into office.

They have managed to take a GOP that should have been a 50 year dynasty and made it into an object lesson in greed, incompetence, and arrogance. Anyone who votes for a Republican in the next election cycle needs to have his head examined.

I agree. Just annoying that he's not going to get more than a tarnished name for all he's done.

ranalin wrote:

I agree. Just annoying that he's not going to get more than a tarnished name for all he's done.

He's part of the charmed class. Folks like that never get the thrashing they truly deserve. Get over it. He and Cheney will probably go to their deaths in their old age honestly believing that they did the right thing surrounded by mindless syncophants who are willing to entertain that fiction. They will escape justice largely because the cost of that justice would be anarchy and a hundred years of mindless reprisals.

At some point, one party has to be the adult supervision. Right now, it appears the Democrats are the ones. And as much as I'd like to see the lot of them drummed out and flogged, someone has to think of the nation. Gods know that they haven't ... ever.

ranalin wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
ranalin wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

there's got to be an impeachment.

We could only be so lucky.

As bad as things are with the Bush presidency, I don't think it is in anyone's interest to impeach at this point. The run is almost over and an impeachment would give the mouth breathers another grudge (e.g.: the Nixon impeachment) to grind for the next 50 years. Better to be magnanimous and remind folks that things will be this bad again if any of those criminals ever make it back into office.

They have managed to take a GOP that should have been a 50 year dynasty and made it into an object lesson in greed, incompetence, and arrogance. Anyone who votes for a Republican in the next election cycle needs to have his head examined.

I agree. Just annoying that he's not going to get more than a tarnished name for all he's done.

It's not a matter of political maneuvering or forcing the Bush supporters to relent, not anymore. If what McClellan says is true then Bush is guilty of some very serious crimes. If he wasn't charged with them based on where we sit in the election cycle it would be an unforgivable failure of the judicial system.

No wonder the White House is so desperate to paint him as a left-wing crazy. If half the stuff he's saying is true, there's got to be an impeachment.

OpEd piece in today's WSJ tells just that -- the publisher of the book is a part of a conglomerate that is controlled by a bank which in turn is owned by Soros and linked to Jim Johnson who is reported to do the VP candidate search for Obama. A conclusive proof of a left-wing battiness is obtained!

typos fixed.

If he was, he'd be pardoned. The more important thing is getting the policy wonks together to root out all the myriad changes made to government via the Federal Register notices, Presidential decrees, the corruption of the Federal judiciary, political purges in government Departments and the like. That's years worth of hard work just to get us back to a system that's not riddled with ideological time bombs.

LobsterMobster wrote:
ranalin wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
ranalin wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

there's got to be an impeachment.

We could only be so lucky.

As bad as things are with the Bush presidency, I don't think it is in anyone's interest to impeach at this point. The run is almost over and an impeachment would give the mouth breathers another grudge (e.g.: the Nixon impeachment) to grind for the next 50 years. Better to be magnanimous and remind folks that things will be this bad again if any of those criminals ever make it back into office.

They have managed to take a GOP that should have been a 50 year dynasty and made it into an object lesson in greed, incompetence, and arrogance. Anyone who votes for a Republican in the next election cycle needs to have his head examined.

I agree. Just annoying that he's not going to get more than a tarnished name for all he's done.

It's not a matter of political maneuvering or forcing the Bush supporters to relent, not anymore. If what McClellan says is true then Bush is guilty of some very serious crimes. If he wasn't charged with them based on where we sit in the election cycle it would be an unforgivable failure of the judicial system.

I agree. Do we really want to set the precedent that all you have to do is hold off the investigations until the eighth year, and then you get an automatic stay-out-of-jail card?

Nixon was not prosecuted. Reagan was not impeached or prosecuted (by agreement with the Democrats, I might add.) Clinton was impeached but acquitted, making a mockery of a tool that is very important (and allowing people to impute the same political motives to the Nixon resignation, btw).

So it's not like we've been good about holding Presidents responsible for their actions.

Robear wrote:

If he was, he'd be pardoned. The more important thing is getting the policy wonks together to root out all the myriad changes made to government via the Federal Register notices, Presidential decrees, the corruption of the Federal judiciary, political purges in government Departments and the like. That's years worth of hard work just to get us back to a system that's not riddled with ideological time bombs.

Once the Democrats are in power, do you think they will give up the power that Bush has accumulated? I doubt it. There hasn't been any discussion of this that I've seen. There's no pledge to undo what he's done. The Dems are just eager to get their hands on the reins.

Aetius wrote:

Once the Democrats are in power, do you think they will give up the power that Bush has accumulated? I doubt it. There hasn't been any discussion of this that I've seen. There's no pledge to undo what he's done. The DemsThe Clintons are just eager to get their hands on the reins.

Fixed that for ya.

I honestly don't know about Obama. Maybe his charisma hides it too well, but I haven't seen anything with him that makes me think he is inherently evil (other than him running for political office at all). My default with all politicians are that they are assholes looking for money and power and will screw the country over the first chance they get. Usually it only takes a couple of debates and/or a few Daily Show clips to reinforce my suspicions. Obama has been in the limelight for a couple of years now and I still haven't seen it, making me cautiously optimistic (which probably means that he's actually the anti-christ).

Once the Democrats are in power, do you think they will give up the power that Bush has accumulated? I doubt it. There hasn't been any discussion of this that I've seen. There's no pledge to undo what he's done. The Dems are just eager to get their hands on the reins.

I have to hope that is not true, or we will be stuck with an eviscerated system with strings and levers inserted everywhere that lead back to the President and/or special interests. The purpose of the bureaucracy - to slow down the insertion of special interests into government and smooth over biases - has been subverted, and it's based on an ideology that deliberately ignored why we have it in the first place. If we don't fix it, we've accepted Cheney's and ultimately Nixon's interpretation of the Presidency as first among the branches of government.

At least Obama, in one of his speeches, pledged to restore the due process and the notion of habeas corpus.