Oh Snap! McClellan TUBs Bush & Co.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I really can't knock the "rats" for fleeing the "burning ship", except that they were, and still are hypocrites that are just exercising their constitutional right to cover their butts.

It's the piles of money they'll get for the books, speaking engagements, and media punditry that follows that really irks me.

Charlie (they were only "following orders") Monoxide

McClellan in his interview tonight on Olbermann sounded more like he was finally recognizing he'd been duped than that he was covering his rear and making a buck. He still spoke fondly of Bush, like a domestic abuse victim that is in denial. I think he was sort of out of the loop. It was credible that Libby and Cheney used McClellan during the Ambassador Wilson psyop.

I have yet to read McClellan's book but it is next on my list after I finish the one I am reading (The SkepDoc's autobiography as one of the first women flight surgeons ever.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Now the recriminations and return fire from Bushland.

Oh, and this is what McClellan said about Richard Clarke in 2004 when McClellan was press secretary and Clark came out with a book critical of Bush:

I am really glad the interviewers are pointing out McClellan's parroting of the talking points against Clarke's book. It highlights the fact the talking points are manufactured, passed out like hymn books and echoed across talking head land in a concerted response to yet another expose'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

BTW, here are the talking points I have gathered up so far against McClellan's accusations:

• We're shocked, it's not like him
• He was used by the Liberals and the publisher is Left-Wing and tied to Soros
• He was really out of the loop so he couldn't know about the stuff he's written about
• Why did he wait so long to speak up? (Implying McClellan is lying for book sales without actually accusing McClellan of lying for book sales.)

You will likely hears these themes repeated over and over in the next few days.

The more negative talking points don't seem to be sticking so I'm not sure but I wonder if they've been abandoned because Scotty comes off as too nice and it might backfire:

• He's disgruntled
• It's for the money

I predict you won't hear these talking points nearly as much but they'll come out if the others are ineffective.

Actually addressing anything specific in McClellan's book is pretty rare so far with the exception McCain and Rice immediately responded with the usual, "everyone thought Saddam had WMDs" excuse that has been repeated every time it is suggested Bush lied rather than Bush was simply wrong. Since McClellan is still fluctuating between Bush lied and Bush was just wrong, how this plays out may be fairly interesting. I am curious just how far the book goes down the willful deceit road.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What's interesting to me is that the primary allegations made by McClelland are precisely those made by Seymour Hersh in his 2004 book, Chain Of Command.

Also echoed by all the other Neocon and administration types who have written tell-all books over the last few years... Most of them saying what amounts to "It wasn't MY fault".

Are you implying Hersh was saying it wasn't his fault?

Hersh is not the only one, Democracy Now has had many people on who were reporting the truth from the beginning. And what about Ambassador Wilson? What about Scott Ritter? And what about Bill Moyers? These people all spoke up questioning the evidence Bush was using to justify invading Iraq.

I should point out Hersh has been saying now for about 2 years that Bush wants to invade or bomb Iran before leaving office.

Oct 07: Seymour Hersh: White House Intensifying Plans to Attack Iran

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Democracy Now has been providing investigative reporting all along on how Bush and his cronies distorted the evidence for going to war:

“The Man Who Pushed America to War”–Aram Roston on “The Extraordinary Life, Adventures and Obsessions of Ahmad Chalabi”

So Wrong for So Long: Greg Mitchell on How the Press, the Pundits—and the President—Failed on Iraq

935 Lies (and Counting): Study Documents Bush Admin’s False Statements Preceding Iraq War

Ex-CIA Head Criticizes Admin on Pre-War Intel (That would be Slam Dunk Tenet. He could be said to have been claiming it wasn't him.)

2006: Report: Blair Knew Iraq Had No WMDs

2006: Two Danish Journalists On Trial For Reporting Iraq Had No WMDs

In Denmark two journalists have gone on trial for publishing a prize-winning article that revealed the Danish government did not believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ahead of the war. The articles were published a year after the war started and were based on a leaked government report. This marks the first time in the history of modern Denmark that journalists have been charged with divulging state secrets. They face up to two years in prison if found guilty.

I'll have to follow up on that one to see what happened in the trial.

2006: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War


I stopped the search there because I think everyone should get the picture here. Yet the right wingers in this forum continually dispute the value of Democracy Now as a legit news source. They prefer Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin for their news.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is one of those tired arguments that needs to be retired by all sides. Every author, be it someone writing a 20 volume history of the Sassanid Empire or making a "Humor in uniform" submission to Readers Digest hopes to get paid for their effort, but their prime motivation for writing is they hope to produce something others want to read and find entertaining or informative.

Besides, according to most of the right leaning forum members, making money needs no apology. At least that's what they post whenever obscene oil corporate profits topics come up.

 

[Puppycow]

• We're shocked, it's not like him

• 
  
  Slight tweak on that one: "We're puzzled"
  
  

  The Puzzled Presidency
  
  Dan Bartlett has had 36 hours to think it over, and he's still puzzled.
  
  "There's not a lot of specific evidence [for] some of the more explosive charges that he's putting in this book; that's the part that is leaving us most puzzled," the former Bush White House official said of his turncoat former colleague, Scott McClellan, on NBC's "Today" show this morning.
  
  Bartlett's understanding does not appear to have advanced much from Wednesday, when he announced his befuddlement on television. "Those of us who were close to Scott during this process and the last eight years are really just puzzled by and bewildered by the views," he said then.
  
  The puzzlement was pervasive. "We are puzzled," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. And President Bush? "He is puzzled," Perino reported. . . .

  
  
  They're all just bewildered and confused and clueless, I suppose.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think they need to put a few more adjectives in those talking points memos. Kind of gives them away when they all choose the same word, "puzzled".

 

[DaChew]

One of the other talking points of conservative blogs right now is this:
McClellans book is published by Public Affairs Books. Public Affairs Books is owned by Perseus Publishing. Perseus Publishing is owned by Perseus LLC. Perseus LLC is owned by George Soros.

Now, I know that people here don't consider the source of the money for something like this very relevant. What's important is what's actually in the book. Just as an example, when you read any of the global warming threads that occasionally pop up, mostly folks here don't usually think it makes much of a point to show that an AGW skeptic may have been funded at one time or another by any of the oil companies.

There are some folks out there though that seem to think this sort of thing is important and so it makes sense to bring it up, in my opinion, as a contributing factor in the overall discussion.

 

[Cicero]

McClellan in his interview tonight on Olbermann sounded more like he was finally recognizing he'd been duped than that he was covering his rear and making a buck. He still spoke fondly of Bush, like a domestic abuse victim that is in denial. I think he was sort of out of the loop. It was credible that Libby and Cheney used McClellan during the Ambassador Wilson psyop.

I have yet to read McClellan's book but it is next on my list after I finish the one I am reading (The SkepDoc's autobiography as one of the first women flight surgeons ever.)

After McClellan attacked Dr. Rice as a Bush sycophant, there was a storm of protest by feminists....Well, actually not. The feminists will rush to the aid of William Jefferson during his frequent bouts with sexual harassment and worse, but if a double minority conservative is demeaned by a man the feminists are tone deaf.

Considering that McClellan is a close confidant of Bush and a White House insider, I guess the libs can now relax that the Iraq War was not about oil since that was never cited as the reason for war in Chris Matthews favorite summer reading.

 

[easycruise]

Democracy Now has been providing investigative reporting all along on how Bush and his cronies distorted the evidence for going to war

Certainly you must realize (if you did any due diligence) that the main reason for going to war was the enforcement of the many UN resolutions that Saddam wouldn't comply with. Culminating in 1441, authorizing the use of force, there was 689, 660, etc. etc. Harping on the WMD reasoning is a convienent sleight-of-hand, actually.

It's interesting when the Bush bashers talk about an "illegal war" that was against "international law", yet totally ignore the UN resolutions that are really the only "international law" that are worth looking at.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Harping on the WMD reasoning is a convienent sleight-of-hand, actually.

Weren't the U.N. resolutions (over which you claim the U.S. went to war in Iraq) about WMDS and inspections of same? eh? Anyway you look at it, it was WMDS used as the excuse for the war and a good one at that. It was what what the American people and the world were told.
I thought it was an excellent reason ... too bad it wasn't true.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Certainly you must realize (if you did any due diligence) that the main reason for going to war was the enforcement of the many UN resolutions that Saddam wouldn't comply with. Culminating in 1441, authorizing the use of force, there was 689, 660, etc. etc. Harping on the WMD reasoning is a convienent sleight-of-hand, actually.

Correct me if I am wrong but if these resolutions as I suspect all had to do with making sure there were no WMDS, and there were no WMDS, I think in his twisted way of thinking Saddam felt justified in feeling that fully complying with the resolutions were not justified since there were no WMDs to which they would apply. He certainly did allow several teams of inspectors into the country and they found nothing. The basis for going to war was not these resolutions, in spite of what Condie pleads, they were Colin Powell's performance in the UN with fabricated photos of mobile bio warfare labs and faulty or deliberately faked intelligence.

Sure blame the war on the U.N. now. That's funny.

 

[Dr Adequate]

After McClellan attacked Dr. Rice as a Bush sycophant, there was a storm of protest by feminists....Well, actually not. The feminists will rush to the aid of William Jefferson during his frequent bouts with sexual harassment and worse, but if a double minority conservative is demeaned by a man the feminists are tone deaf.

I've seen this brand of stupid floating around the forums a lot lately.

'Winger memes are like 'flu strains, a new one evolves every few months. And they cause delirium and nausea.

 

[DaChew]

Correct me if I am wrong but if these resolutions as I suspect all had to do with making sure there were no WMDS, and there were no WMDS, I think in his twisted way of thinking Saddam felt justified in feeling that fully complying with the resolutions were not justified since there were no WMDs to which they would apply. He certainly did allow several teams of inspectors into the country and they found nothing. The basis for going to war was not these resolutions, in spite of what Condie pleads, they were Colin Powell's performance in the UN with fabricated photos of mobile bio warfare labs and faulty or deliberately faked intelligence.

Sure blame the war on the U.N. now. That's funny.

There were several violations of the cease fire by Iraq during the post gulf war 1 time. Coalition aircraft were fired on a number of times. Now, if you violate a cease fire, doesn't that mean that you no longer honor the agreement that brought about the cease fire? And if you don't honor an agreement then no agreement exists. If no cease fire agreement exists then you have no cease fire.

 

[corplinx]

Did anyone read the Bob Dole letter to Scott?

Wow.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Did anyone read the Bob Dole letter to Scott?

Wow.

For the record you mean this e-mail "letter" ?

Scott,

There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.

In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you. No doubt you will "clean up" as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, "Biting The Hand That Fed Me." Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years.

I have no intention of reading your "exposé" because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job. That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You're a hot ticket now but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?

BOB DOLE

bcc: to the world

Confirming source:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,360723,00.html

 

[fishbob]

After McClellan attacked Dr. Rice as a Bush sycophant, there was a storm of protest by feminists....Well, actually not. The feminists will rush to the aid of William Jefferson during his frequent bouts with sexual harassment and worse, but if a double minority conservative is demeaned by a man the feminists are tone deaf.

Being called a lying weasel for being a lying weasel is 'demeaning', while actually being a lying weasel is not?

By this logic, being told that your foot is covered with doggy doo after you step in doggy doo is worse than having your foot covered in doggy doo.

 

[fishbob]

Did anyone read the Bob Dole letter to Scott?

Wow.

That is nasty. Especially since Bob didn't actually read what Scott wrote.
Bob's Viagra prescription expire or what??

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

One of the other talking points of conservative blogs right now is this:
McClellans book is published by Public Affairs Books. Public Affairs Books is owned by Perseus Publishing. Perseus Publishing is owned by Perseus LLC. Perseus LLC is owned by George Soros.

Now, I know that people here don't consider the source of the money for something like this very relevant. What's important is what's actually in the book. Just as an example, when you read any of the global warming threads that occasionally pop up, mostly folks here don't usually think it makes much of a point to show that an AGW skeptic may have been funded at one time or another by any of the oil companies.

There are some folks out there though that seem to think this sort of thing is important and so it makes sense to bring it up, in my opinion, as a contributing factor in the overall discussion.

Actually, that talking point was on my list. Not sure why I didn't get it into the post.

It is reasonable to look at funding sources. This publisher deals specifically with the kind of book McClellan wrote:

PublicAffairs proudly publishes books by today’s top journalists, historians, and policymakers, in the fields of current affairs, politics, history, and biography. If you would like to submit a book proposal to PublicAffairs, please send it to the following address:

And while there are a lot of liberal authors and titles in the list of past works they've published, there are also books and authors from the right. For example they published 2 books by Ken Starr, "The Starr Report", and "The Starr Evidence".